Solve this!
•
1 May 2011, 14:11
•
Journals
Hello again dumb cf people :P! Solve this and you won't be dumb... maybe. It's not actually that hard for math-oriented people :<. But who doesn't know the answer, try it!
|
35.2 %
(19 votes)
|
|
64.8 %
(35 votes)
|
e: or does that OVERSCORE - mean infinite ammount of that number? I don't remember seeing it ever :/
*high5*
i see.
1) 0.333...
2) 0.3^ (replace ^ with overscore, crossfire refuses to display it)
3) 0.3 repeating
4) Since every repeating decimal can be presented as a fraction, you can write 1/3. It's the same thing.
And I swear that in my whole scooling time I never used that overscore thing to express a repetitive decimal, I simply used it to express the mean : x^ (overscore).
And why do you tell me :
"0,334 is a completely different value."
when you say below :
"They're not different numbers. 0,999... is just another way to represent 1."
Because both are true. 0,334 > 0,333... and 0,999... = 1.
it is smart enough I think lol
There is no 4 in an infinite string of 3's, obviously.
It's even rounded incorrectly, I'd get it if 2/3 came up as 0,66666667 (screen full of sixes but the last digit rounded up to be closer the the exact value [in fact this is exactly what Google calculator does]), but your result is simply a bug.
1/3, the result is = 0,33333333333
and if I type
2/3, the result is : 0,6666666667
Otherwise you'll never know the truth
Just for the info! :)
by convention, you put the last two numbers of the infinite number and then 3 dots, then you mean the fraction 1/3
so like 0.846897966...
0.333333333*3=0.999999999999999999999999999999999
(1/3)*3=1
0.333333333*3=0.999999999
however it don't say divide it says multiple
The reason why 1 is usually not written in the form 0,999... is simply that 1 is shorter and less confusing for most people.
0,(9) and 1 is the same mathematically.
On the one side 0.99.. converges to 1 and can be identified as 1. Moreover there is no other real number between those two.
On the other side 1 is a rational number, 0.99.. is an irrational one, which means, they r different.
So now im confused :)
just to clarify my statement, i understand they are treated as the same in mathematics, it's proven mathematically that they are the same (proven within the mathematics). but a common sense tells us 0,(9) lacks this something to be 1. it lacks finity.
(fraction 1/3 is multiplied by 3. the result is 1)
We divide one by three and then multiply back the result by 3. Logically we get the same as at the start - one.
If we want to do the same, but by using decimal representation, it would be:
0,(3)*3=0,(9)
If you receive a different result by two different forms of representation of a number, you draw a conclusion that these two results are the same. Don't you think the proper conclusion would be that the fault lies in the translation from a fraction to a decimal representation? That is in the bolded point below:
1/3 = 0,(3)
Ever tried writing down the difference between 0,999... and 1?
xD
1/3 = 1/3
1/3 * 3 = 3/3 = 1
solved!
D-;
1/3 aint 0.33333333333333333333333..
the antecedent is wrong so there cannot be any conclusions
Example:
I am God so you all are stupid
the "you all are stupid" part is always correct cause the antecedent is wrong (I'm not God obviously) so everything that follows this false antecedent is correct (even if I would have written down: you all are smart, would have been correct but that makes even less sense)
True. However "1/3" is "0.33333333333333333333333...", just like it says in the "problem" (although there was no problem to begin with as far as I can tell).
The three dots is the symbol for "this sequence repeats infinitely". Notice that it is impossible to write down all the threes, because by definition of infinity, the "last 3" doesn't exist.
We just can't deal with infinity.