If a circle has an infinite diameter..

[archcommus]

Originally posted by: Howard
Why is there no true decimal representation of 1/3?

Well, if you want to say there is, it would have to be .3 repeating INFINITELY, no set amount of 3s. Meaning that number * 3 = .9 repeating INFINITELY, not 1. So close to it but not quite.

But doesn't matter anyway because I agree with the Blizzard proof.

 

[GML3G0]

Originally posted by: archcommus

Originally posted by: Howard
Why is there no true decimal representation of 1/3?

Well, if you want to say there is, it would have to be .3 repeating INFINITELY, no set amount of 3s. Meaning that number * 3 = .9 repeating INFINITELY, not 1. So close to it but not quite.

But doesn't matter anyway because I agree with the Blizzard proof.

: sigh :

1/3 = 0.33333.... infinitely

0.3333... (infinitely) * 3 = 0.999.. (infinitely)

so if 1/3 * 3 = 1, and 0.333 (infinitely) is the same as 1/3, then 0.333 (infinitely) * 3 should also = 1.

but w/e, either proof works.

 

[The Pentium Guy]

Topic Title: If a circle has an infinite diameter..

Damn. I thought this would be another infinity thread....

 

[archcommus]

Originally posted by: GML3G0

Originally posted by: archcommus

Originally posted by: Howard
Why is there no true decimal representation of 1/3?

Well, if you want to say there is, it would have to be .3 repeating INFINITELY, no set amount of 3s. Meaning that number * 3 = .9 repeating INFINITELY, not 1. So close to it but not quite.

But doesn't matter anyway because I agree with the Blizzard proof.

: sigh :

1/3 = 0.33333.... infinitely

0.3333... (infinitely) * 3 = 0.999.. (infinitely)

so if 1/3 * 3 = 1, and 0.333 (infinitely) is the same as 1/3, then 0.333 (infinitely) * 3 should also = 1.

but w/e, either proof works.

Yeah, makes sense.

 

[Howard]

Originally posted by: archcommus

Originally posted by: GML3G0

Originally posted by: archcommus

Originally posted by: Howard
Why is there no true decimal representation of 1/3?

Well, if you want to say there is, it would have to be .3 repeating INFINITELY, no set amount of 3s. Meaning that number * 3 = .9 repeating INFINITELY, not 1. So close to it but not quite.

But doesn't matter anyway because I agree with the Blizzard proof.

: sigh :

1/3 = 0.33333.... infinitely

0.3333... (infinitely) * 3 = 0.999.. (infinitely)

so if 1/3 * 3 = 1, and 0.333 (infinitely) is the same as 1/3, then 0.333 (infinitely) * 3 should also = 1.

but w/e, either proof works.

Yeah, makes sense.

... What?

 

[archcommus]

Originally posted by: Howard

Originally posted by: archcommus

Originally posted by: GML3G0

Originally posted by: archcommus

Originally posted by: Howard
Why is there no true decimal representation of 1/3?

Well, if you want to say there is, it would have to be .3 repeating INFINITELY, no set amount of 3s. Meaning that number * 3 = .9 repeating INFINITELY, not 1. So close to it but not quite.

But doesn't matter anyway because I agree with the Blizzard proof.

: sigh :

1/3 = 0.33333.... infinitely

0.3333... (infinitely) * 3 = 0.999.. (infinitely)

so if 1/3 * 3 = 1, and 0.333 (infinitely) is the same as 1/3, then 0.333 (infinitely) * 3 should also = 1.

but w/e, either proof works.

Yeah, makes sense.

... What?

The second time he gave me that proof. Makes sense to me.