Is Dixie proud of his ignorance?

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Huh? OH. Sorry, that was the 5001th time someone has commented on Dixie's inability to divide 1x3, although I think I missed a few.

But I don't have an inability to divide 1x3. I've only said it can't be done without producing a remainder.

Yes, the running total is now 5,254 and counting our two posts... 5,256... and still going strong!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

And this is the second time I'll suggest that someone check natl. statistics on education, and see where Alabama ranks.

Although you do have a valid point. Dixie shouldn't offer his lack of ability as a representative sample.

But you have to wonder about his 4.0, and how it reflects on the state.

I think, what with standardization... a 4.0 in Alabama is the same as a 4.0 in whatever fucked up state you are from, which you are apparently ashamed to add to your profile. (Probably Michigan!)

 

[Cancel 2018. 3]

dixie isn't smart enough to understand the concept of ignorance.

 

[Althea]

But I don't have an inability to divide 1x3. I've only said it can't be done without producing a remainder.

Yes, the running total is now 5,254 and counting our two posts... 5,256... and still going strong!

OK..let's put this to rest.
You do indeed have the inability to do 2nd grade math.

1 divided by 3 = 1/3.

There is no remainder. If fact, you will never have a remainder if you divide a smaller number, by a larger number. It will always be a fraction less than 1....or if you prefer decimals, this answer would be app. .33333333333

 

[Althea]

I think, what with standardization... a 4.0 in Alabama is the same as a 4.0 in whatever fucked up state you are from, which you are apparently ashamed to add to your profile. (Probably Michigan!)

Yes, of course...it's the standardization.

Was there standardized curriculum when you went to school?

 

[Rune]

OK..let's put this to rest.
You do indeed have the inability to do 2nd grade math.

1 divided by 3 = 1/3.

There is no remainder. If fact, you will never have a remainder if you divide a smaller number, by a larger number. It will always be a fraction less than 1....or if you prefer decimals, this answer would be app. .33333333333

She thinks she's going to put this to rest?

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

OK..let's put this to rest.
You do indeed have the inability to do 2nd grade math.

1 divided by 3 = 1/3.

There is no remainder. If fact, you will never have a remainder if you divide a smaller number, by a larger number. It will always be a fraction less than 1....or if you prefer decimals, this answer would be app. .33333333333

"1/3" is a fractional representation of value, not a number. In fact, as you can see, it is TWO numbers, separated by the "/" which is commonly known in mathematics, as the symbol for division.... which, ironically enough, is what "1/3" is... a division problem.

Now... ".3333333333" IS a number. An actual VALUE, and not a representation of value, like a fraction. If you add three of these together, you get ".999999999" not "1" ...because.... there IS a remainder!

5,257...5,258....

 

[Rationalist]

"1/3" is a fractional representation of value, not a number. In fact, as you can see, it is TWO numbers, separated by the "/" which is commonly known in mathematics, as the symbol for division.... which, ironically enough, is what "1/3" is... a division problem.

Now... ".3333333333" IS a number. An actual VALUE, and not a representation of value, like a fraction. If you add three of these together, you get ".999999999" not "1" ...because.... there IS a remainder!

5,257...5,258....

 

[Rune]

Apparently Dix has doesn't believe in infinity either.

So Dix,let me get this straight, If I have 3 eggs, and I give you one third of my eggs, your egg will end up cracked and broken, because you lose the remainder during the process of division?

5260,...

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Apparently Dix has doesn't believe in infinity either.

So Dix,let me get this straight, If I have 3 eggs, and I give you one third of my eggs, your egg will end up cracked and broken, because you lose the remainder during the process of division?

5260,...

no, you don't have it straight. sorry.

Divide $100 evenly between three friends, and tell me what you come up with... (Oh.. you need for all three to have the exact same amount with none left over.)

 

[Althea]

She thinks she's going to put this to rest?

"1/3" is a fractional representation of value, not a number. In fact, as you can see, it is TWO numbers, separated by the "/" which is commonly known in mathematics, as the symbol for division.... which, ironically enough, is what "1/3" is... a division problem.

Now... ".3333333333" IS a number. An actual VALUE, and not a representation of value, like a fraction. If you add three of these together, you get ".999999999" not "1" ...because.... there IS a remainder!

5,257...5,258....

From your favorite source of information:



Common, vulgar, or simple fractionsA common fraction (also known as a vulgar fraction or simple fraction) is a rational number written as a/b or

, where the integers a and b are called the numerator and the denominator, respectively.[SUP][2][/SUP] The numerator represents a number of equal parts and the denominator, which cannot be zero, indicates how many of those parts make up a unit or a whole. In the examples 2/5 and 7/3, the slanting line is called a solidus or forward slash. In the examples

and

, the horizontal line is called a vinculum or, informally, a "fraction bar."

 

[Rune]

no, you don't have it straight. sorry.

Divide $100 evenly between three friends, and tell me what you come up with... (Oh.. you need for all three to have the exact same amount with none left over.)

Ok, so because the US doesn't mint the correct coins to divide $100 into three even amounts, a true 1/3 is impossible?

No wonder I call you Dixtard so often.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

From your favorite source of information:



Common, vulgar, or simple fractionsA common fraction (also known as a vulgar fraction or simple fraction) is a rational number written as a/b or

, where the integers a and b are called the numerator and the denominator, respectively.[SUP][2][/SUP] The numerator represents a number of equal parts and the denominator, which cannot be zero, indicates how many of those parts make up a unit or a whole. In the examples 2/5 and 7/3, the slanting line is called a solidus or forward slash. In the examples

and

, the horizontal line is called a vinculum or, informally, a "fraction bar."

I've not disputed any of this, I understand all of this completely, but a fractional representation of value is not a value. We use fractions as a 'rational numbers' in order to make mathematics function, just like we use 'complex numbers' and 'irrational numbers' to make mathematics work. That has nothing to do with my very simple and yet somehow evocative statement, that one can't be divided by three without a remainder. For some odd reason, that fact seems to blow your minds! You seem to think I am some sort of moron to believe that! But really.. there IS a remainder when you divide one by three. The same remainder as you have when you divide 10 by three, or 100 by three. The fact that you can't tell me how to evenly divide $100 between three friends, has nothing to do with not having the proper coin values, it's because there is a remainder when you divide 1 by three, in any base 10 math.

This has nothing to do with "thirds existing" or anything else, really. We assume the remainder, because the remainder is inconsequential, because we are never going to calculate to infinity. We don't need to resolve what to do with this remainder to make 1/3 work or 3 x 1/3 = 1. Still... the remainder DOES exist.

5,263... we can get to 6,000... I know we can!!

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Who knows... We might one day trip into a black hole and discover... THIS IS WHERE ALL THOSE REMAINDERS ENDED UP!

 

[Althea]

I've not disputed any of this, I understand all of this completely, but a fractional representation of value is not a value. We use fractions as a 'rational numbers' in order to make mathematics function, just like we use 'complex numbers' and 'irrational numbers' to make mathematics work. That has nothing to do with my very simple and yet somehow evocative statement, that one can't be divided by three without a remainder. For some odd reason, that fact seems to blow your minds! You seem to think I am some sort of moron to believe that! But really.. there IS a remainder when you divide one by three. The same remainder as you have when you divide 10 by three, or 100 by three. The fact that you can't tell me how to evenly divide $100 between three friends, has nothing to do with not having the proper coin values, it's because there is a remainder when you divide 1 by three, in any base 10 math.

This has nothing to do with "thirds existing" or anything else, really. We assume the remainder, because the remainder is inconsequential, because we are never going to calculate to infinity. We don't need to resolve what to do with this remainder to make 1/3 work or 3 x 1/3 = 1. Still... the remainder DOES exist.

5,263... we can get to 6,000... I know we can!!

Just as you were clueless in the Medicaid/Medicare debate, you are clueless here.

Just as you persisted, even though you made yourself look dumber and dumber in the M/M debate, you continue to persist here.

You don't get to choose which facts to ignore, just because they don't suit your purpose.


You can divide 1 pizza/sandwich/cookie/loaf of bread/etc. between 3 people, and have no remainder.

Whereas I don't expect you to quit while you're behind in this thread, I believe we've gotten an answer to the OP.

You really ARE proud of your ignorance after all.

 

[PostmodernProphet]

But I don't have an inability to divide 1x3. I've only said it can't be done without producing a remainder.

4.2 out of every 10 posters here never understood that, dixie......(Watermark was the .2)........

 

[cancel2 2022]

4.2 out of every 10 posters here never understood that, dixie......(Watermark was the .2)........

Are you actually agreeing with Dixie?

 

[CanceledB]

Are you actually agreeing with Dixie?

They're bff's.

 

[Dixie - In Memoriam]

Just as you were clueless in the Medicaid/Medicare debate, you are clueless here.

Just as you persisted, even though you made yourself look dumber and dumber in the M/M debate, you continue to persist here.

You don't get to choose which facts to ignore, just because they don't suit your purpose.


You can divide 1 pizza/sandwich/cookie/loaf of bread/etc. between 3 people, and have no remainder.

Whereas I don't expect you to quit while you're behind in this thread, I believe we've gotten an answer to the OP.

You really ARE proud of your ignorance after all.

I hope this is the same thing as my understanding of the SCOTUS ruling, because it would mean I am correct!

I have never said that a pizza/sandwich/cookie/loaf/pie/ruler... can't be divided into three parts. Nowhere can you find that post by me, and maybe that's your problem? You are somehow reading what I have posted, and coming up with that being what I said? I can certainly see why you'd think that is stupid, because it is indeed, quite stupid.

There is no way to divide the pizza (or whatever) into three parts with equal percentages, and have no remainder. 33.33% +33.33% +33.34% ...best you can do! Go ahead, give it a shot! Can you come up with three of the same exact number (not fraction) which equals one? Now... with a pizza or pie, or even a ruler, the remainder is insignificant and we can't see it. We can divide our pie with a precision laser, and everyone will assume the three pieces are equal, but one of the three parts will have to include the remainder, or it is left over. Does it matter? NOPE! That's exactly why we can say 1/3x3=1, when the actual value is .9999e

 

[Rune]

That's exactly why we can say 1/3x3=1, when the actual value is .9999e

You are more of a moron than even I dreamed possible.


1/3 x3=1 you frigging idiot.

Happy now?