Is Dixie proud of his ignorance?

Aoxomoxoa said:
She said divide but used a multiply sign, the intention was clear though.
Click to expand...

And it was addressed. It's very poor form to be criticizing someone's math skills, while repeatedly making the same simple error, don't you agree?

But aside from this.. the moron proved my point about "1/3" not being a legitimate "value" because it is a representation of value. "1/3" has a greater value if applied to 300 as opposed to 30. "1/3" of 300 is more than "1/3" of 30. So "1/3" is NOT a value, but a REPRESENTATION of value. It's VALUE is dependent upon what it applies to. Three "1/3" is equal to 1 whole. I have never disputed that. BUT... when you divide the numeral ONE by the numeral THREE, there is a remainder.

What is so freaking amazing and controversial about this, I don't get it? It perplexes me that we have had such a robust debate on this, because you'd think something as clearly definitive as mathematics, wouldn't garner opposing sides in a battle of philosophical difference, would you? So it's fascinating to me, absolutely STUNNING that I have somehow been brilliant enough to find such an anomaly and it has been responded to over 5,000 times in dozens of threads.
 
Dixie said:
And it was addressed. It's very poor form to be criticizing someone's math skills, while repeatedly making the same simple error, don't you agree?

But aside from this.. the moron proved my point about "1/3" not being a legitimate "value" because it is a representation of value. "1/3" has a greater value if applied to 300 as opposed to 30. "1/3" of 300 is more than "1/3" of 30. So "1/3" is NOT a value, but a REPRESENTATION of value. It's VALUE is dependent upon what it applies to. Three "1/3" is equal to 1 whole. I have never disputed that. BUT... when you divide the numeral ONE by the numeral THREE, there is a remainder.

What is so freaking amazing and controversial about this, I don't get it? It perplexes me that we have had such a robust debate on this, because you'd think something as clearly definitive as mathematics, wouldn't garner opposing sides in a battle of philosophical difference, would you? So it's fascinating to me, absolutely STUNNING that I have somehow been brilliant enough to find such an anomaly and it has been responded to over 5,000 times in dozens of threads.
Click to expand...

Wait, I am missing something here. What happens to the "remainder" when we divide 300 by thirds? Is the answer 100 or 99.99999?

FYI, 30 x10 is not 3300 as you indicated in post #99.
 
Rune said:
Wait, I am missing something here. What happens to the "remainder" when we divide 300 by thirds? Is the answer 100 or 99.99999?

FYI, 30 x10 is not 3300 as you indicated in post #99.
Click to expand...

There is no remainder when dividing 300 by 3. I never claimed there was.

*300, duly noted.
 
Last edited:
Dixie said:
You've presented all the evidence needed for your ignorance. No more is needed, but thanks.

PmP was correct, 10x30= 3,300 and 100x300= 30,000

and before you get your panties in a bunch and start explaining the misinterpretation of what YOU wrote yourself...

1/3 of 30 is 10 and 1/3 of 300 is 100. Neither 10 or 100 is "1/3" or ".333E"

Now... back to your crayons little one.
Click to expand...
How can you consistently be so clueless? You offer incorrect extensions of a simple math problem here.

I correct you, by telling you that the proper analogy would be to divide 10x30 ( divide 10 BY 30 for those who studied in Alabama). You cannot increase the dividend, without increasing the divisor if you want to offer the same math problem.


Now, you and 4 eyes can try to make it look like I suggested a multiplication problem, but those who didn't pull a 4.0 in the Alabama school system can see that you are both lying.
 
Althea said:
How can you consistently be so clueless? You offer incorrect extensions of a simple math problem here.

I correct you, by telling you that the proper analogy would be to divide 10x30 ( divide 10 BY 30 for those who studied in Alabama). You cannot increase the dividend, without increasing the divisor if you want to offer the same math problem.


Now, you and 4 eyes can try to make it look like I suggested a multiplication problem, but those who didn't pull a 4.0 in the Alabama school system can see that you are both lying.
Click to expand...

Pride - so fierce, it will humiliate itself rather than admit it's wrong.
 
Althea said:
How can you consistently be so clueless? You offer incorrect extensions of a simple math problem here.

I correct you, by telling you that the proper analogy would be to divide 10x30 ( divide 10 BY 30 for those who studied in Alabama). You cannot increase the dividend, without increasing the divisor if you want to offer the same math problem.


Now, you and 4 eyes can try to make it look like I suggested a multiplication problem, but those who didn't pull a 4.0 in the Alabama school system can see that you are both lying.
Click to expand...

you see, Anorexia?.....she doesn't think she made a mistake....
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top