Discussion about math, puzzles, games and fun. Useful symbols: ÷ × ½ √ ∞ ≠ ≤ ≥ ≈ ⇒ ± ∈ Δ θ ∴ ∑ ∫ • π ƒ ¹ ² ³ °
 

You are not logged in. #26 20130307 03:03:24
Re: [1 paradox]It is the same as .3333333... which you already accepted! In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #27 20130307 03:07:39
Re: [1 paradox]Hm, but, you see, I do not allow for repeating 9's after the decimal point. I find that every number has a unique decimal representation that way! The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't. “It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #28 20130307 03:09:52
Re: [1 paradox]But you allow for .333333... and .6666666... why stop at .9999999...? In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #29 20130307 03:18:34
Re: [1 paradox]Because there is no other way to write the first two. The third is needless. The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't. “It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #30 20130307 03:22:27
Re: [1 paradox]Not really it also represents 3 x .3333333... and 9 x .1111111..., all of which you agree exist but suddenly when we multiply they disappear like magic? Last edited by bobbym (20130307 03:22:42) In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #31 20130307 03:24:47
Re: [1 paradox]Yes, but those are not decimal representation of that number. The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't. “It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #32 20130307 03:27:47
Re: [1 paradox]They are also digit by digit multiplication. We are allowed to multiply are we not? In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #33 20130307 03:36:43
Re: [1 paradox]We are allowed to multiply. 3*0.3333...=1. The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't. “It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #34 20130307 03:38:20
Re: [1 paradox]How do you know that 3 * .3333333... = 1? In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #35 20130307 03:51:54
Re: [1 paradox]Because 3*0.333...=3*(1/3)=1. The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't. “It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #36 20130307 03:56:34
Re: [1 paradox]Hmmm, that is because you know and accept that 1 / 3 = .3333333. What would you do for this one? What fraction is that? Last edited by bobbym (20130307 03:56:51) In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #37 20130307 04:08:07
Re: [1 paradox]It is 1/2071. The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't. “It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #38 20130307 04:08:42
Re: [1 paradox]How do you know that? In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #39 20130307 04:09:59
Re: [1 paradox]It was easy finding it. The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't. “It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #40 20130307 04:15:24
Re: [1 paradox]No it was not. It was easy for your package to find it. In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #41 20130307 04:27:27
Re: [1 paradox]Well, if I had a package, I would simply divide 1 by 2071 and check to see if it is that number. Last edited by anonimnystefy (20130307 04:51:27) The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't. “It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #42 20130307 04:36:29
Re: [1 paradox]Did you try that? In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #43 20130307 04:51:43
Re: [1 paradox]The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't. “It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #44 20130307 04:59:39
Re: [1 paradox]Hohohohohohohohohoh! That is a good one. Very good! Last edited by bobbym (20130307 05:08:31) In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #45 20130307 05:11:38
Re: [1 paradox]Well, I do know that 1/3=0.333... Supposing that I do not is very unrealistic. The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't. “It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #46 20130307 05:18:34
Re: [1 paradox]I am asking for the proof without that knowledge because for the bigger fraction you would only have the repeating decimal not the fraction. Do you think that mathematica knows that fraction offhand? In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #47 20130307 05:57:49
Re: [1 paradox]hi bobbym and Stefy
Well it's only a long division. So given the following I could do it without a computer of any kind: You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him find it within himself..........Galileo Galilei #48 20130307 06:10:22
Re: [1 paradox]Hi; Always the string of nines. Last edited by bobbym (20130307 06:14:51) In mathematics, you don't understand things. You just get used to them. I have the result, but I do not yet know how to get it. All physicists, and a good many quite respectable mathematicians are contemptuous about proof. #49 20130307 07:54:01
Re: [1 paradox]That is because you do not have enough digits of precision. The limit operator is just an excuse for doing something you know you can't. “It's the subject that nobody knows anything about that we can all talk about!” ― Richard Feynman “Taking a new step, uttering a new word, is what people fear most.” ― Fyodor Dostoyevsky, Crime and Punishment #50 20130307 08:38:27
Re: [1 paradox]But my point is, you can achieve the same without doing a multiplication. You do a division instead. By long D you get all those digits and then the recurring clicks in and you can stop. No precision problem at all. You cannot teach a man anything; you can only help him find it within himself..........Galileo Galilei 