Archive of Dixie Myths

A fraction is a division problem, not a value. It is two values, separated by a representation of mathematical division. Yes, numbers can be evenly divided in other base systems. Yes, we can assume equal thirds by assuming the floating infinitive remainder of the division problem. Yes, we can define three equal parts by using fractional representation. But 1 simply can't be divided into 3 equal parts without producing a remainder.

No, I will not 'give in' and admit something that is patently stupid. If you believe that 1 can be divided equally by 3, present the value that is multiplied by 3 to get your result... and I said "value" not "fractional representation". If this can not be produced, then it isn't the case, and I am correct. If you can produce such a value, I am wrong. Math is pretty cut and dry that way!
 
Here is an illustration of idiocy...

Dixie: The sky is blue.

Maineperv: No, it's not!

Beefy: Yeah... no, it's not!

Dixie: Yes it is... see?
blue-sky-and-bird-150.jpg


Maineperv: That photo is not in focus!

Beefy: Here is ignorance on display folks!

Dixie: You got THAT right!

Damo: Some skies are blue, but some are not, it depends on many extenuating factors and atmospheric conditions. Just because your picture shows a blue sky, doesn't mean that everyone sees the sky this way, and perception is reality in the greater meaning of life.

Beefy: Yeah, Dixie is a moron without a brain and incapable of learning!

Maineperv: Not to mention a slanderous racist in a trailer park!

Dixie: :wall:
 
Dixie.... if you wanna use big words to try and obscure the fact that you don't know shit from fat meat, I merely point out that - true to form - you can't even do that correctly.
 
Dixie said:
Now, add 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3. That will equal the magic number of 1...

(1/3)+(1/3)+(1/3)=.999e
Click to expand...
A fraction is a value that can be treated as a division problem. It is a way of expressing a value without the remainder. You truly are stupid of you think that 1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 = .9999e...

It equals one.

Anyway, arguing with somebody that clearly doesn't understand and instead of learning works to wallow in their ignorance is a waste of time.

I notice you didn't answer to a base 12 math system. That the decimal system is so limited doesn't mean that such a system is the only way to express a mathematical equation.
 
Anyway, arguing with somebody that clearly doesn't understand and instead of learning works to wallow in their ignorance is a waste of time.

You should see his efforts at logic....
 
IHateGovernment said:
If man had six fingers on his hand 1 divided into equal thirds the decimal equivalent would be 0.4

0.4 + 0.4 + 0.4 = 1
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I meant by base 12 math. If we had 12 digits rather than 10 it is likely our math would be based in that way. Then we'd be arguing that you couldn't divide 1 by 5 "equally".

It is only impossible to express it decimally, if we pretend that there is no other type of mathematical expression than Dixie would be correct. But the reality is that there are literally infinite ways to express it.
 
Yep you can't get equal fifths. It is always .24444444e. There is always a remainder when you divide divide something into five parts.
 
Last edited:
Damocles said:
That's exactly what I meant by base 12 math. If we had 12 digits rather than 10 it is likely our math would be based in that way. Then we'd be arguing that you couldn't divide 1 by 5 "equally".

It is only impossible to express it decimally, if we pretend that there is no other type of mathematical expression than Dixie would be correct. But the reality is that there are literally infinite ways to express it.
Click to expand...

and even more basic than that...there is a difference between being able to DO it and being able to EXPRESS it.

If DIxie were to say that it was impossible to express the result of dividing 1 by three in base ten decimals without an infinitely repeating decimal, he would be correct...but that is hardly proof that 1 cannot be equally divided into three parts.
 
You guys are funny... IF we had 12 fingers... IF we use Base 12... IF we assume fractions are not representations... IF IF IF...

Guess what? IF we had 13 fingers and used Base 13, you still couldn't divide 1 by 3 without a remainder! Guess what else? Even in Base 12, the value of 1 divided by 3, still produces a remainder! Guess what else... no matter how many fingers we have, 1 can't be divided by 3 without a remainder!

For the record, (and the 50 gazillionth time) I understand your argument, and I agree that we have established 1/3 x 3 = 1, and use it daily in calculation. We sent men to the moon using this assumptive value of .333e, and I have never argued that this did not exist or was not a valid function of math. That does not erase the fact that we assume equality because it is unresolvable, and thus, can't be defined absolutely as 'equal'.

We can keep arguing it for another 1500 posts if you like, but guess what? You still will not be able to divide 1 by 3 and not have a remainder!!! I know you want to 'prove Dixie wrong' here, I realize this, I know it means everything in the world to some of you, but you are never going to do it, just like you are never going to be able to show me the three values that define equal thirds, without using a fractional representation.

Fractions are division problems, not individual values. It's impossible for a fraction to be an individual value, you don't have a 1/3 button on your calculator, you have 0-9, but no 1/3. When you do the division math on 1/3, you produce the value .3333e, and this value multiplied by 3, is equal to the value of .9999e, and always will be. This means there is a remainder... somewhere, at some point in time, there is always a remainder, it is an assumed equal value, because it can't be resolved, it is infinitive.
 
No thats wrong.

In any base of a multiple of 3 one can be divided by three with no remainder.
As I said 3 divided by one in base 12 is 0.4 In base 3 it is 0.1 In base 6 it is 0.2 and in base 9 it is 0.3

We can keep arguing it for another 1500 posts if you like, but guess what? You still will not be able to divide 1 by 3 and not have a remainder!!! I know you want to 'prove Dixie wrong' here, I realize this, I know it means everything in the world to some of you, but you are never going to do it, just like you are never going to be able to show me the three values that define equal thirds, without using a fractional representation.

We already have.
 
Man, you people are really DUMB when it comes to math!

Yes Dixie we are all dumb. Every single person who has argued with you on this issue is dumb and it is you and you alone who are right.

I mean I only was a Physics and Computer science major I don't know anything about math.

I believe Damo actually majored in mathematics. I think I'll go with him instead of you.
 
IHateGovernment said:
Man, you people are really DUMB when it comes to math!

Yes Dixie we are all dumb. Every single person who has argued with you on this issue is dumb and it is you and you alone who are right.

I mean I only was a Physics and Computer science major I don't know anything about math.

I believe Damo actually majored in mathematics. I think I'll go with him instead of you.
Click to expand...

Damo was a math major? No wonder we have problems communicating. I was an English major. I never knew what in hell those math geeks were talking about. And I still don't.
 
Dixie said:
You guys are funny... IF we had 12 fingers... IF we use Base 12... IF we assume fractions are not representations... IF IF IF...

Guess what? IF we had 13 fingers and used Base 13, you still couldn't divide 1 by 3 without a remainder! Guess what else? Even in Base 12, the value of 1 divided by 3, still produces a remainder! Guess what else... no matter how many fingers we have, 1 can't be divided by 3 without a remainder!

For the record, (and the 50 gazillionth time) I understand your argument, and I agree that we have established 1/3 x 3 = 1, and use it daily in calculation. We sent men to the moon using this assumptive value of .333e, and I have never argued that this did not exist or was not a valid function of math. That does not erase the fact that we assume equality because it is unresolvable, and thus, can't be defined absolutely as 'equal'.

We can keep arguing it for another 1500 posts if you like, but guess what? You still will not be able to divide 1 by 3 and not have a remainder!!! I know you want to 'prove Dixie wrong' here, I realize this, I know it means everything in the world to some of you, but you are never going to do it, just like you are never going to be able to show me the three values that define equal thirds, without using a fractional representation.

Fractions are division problems, not individual values. It's impossible for a fraction to be an individual value, you don't have a 1/3 button on your calculator, you have 0-9, but no 1/3. When you do the division math on 1/3, you produce the value .3333e, and this value multiplied by 3, is equal to the value of .9999e, and always will be. This means there is a remainder... somewhere, at some point in time, there is always a remainder, it is an assumed equal value, because it can't be resolved, it is infinitive.
Click to expand...
You really don't get it do you? We do have base twelve. We simply use a decimal system. Now fractional values are also used. But you can't remember your fourth grade math.

So, we'll repeat it slowly for you.

There are infinite ways to express it precisely without using a remainder.

And BTW, my calculator from College actually does have values up to base 15. I could also do your silly little equation with base 15... But you can pretend that such mathematical expression doesn't exist, it makes you feel good.

Breathe deeply and you might even believe it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top