this is quite simple,

if you divide 10 by 3 on any calculator or ask any professior, it/they will say that it is 3.3 to the inf

yet this is fundimentaly wrong

 

you do not get an infitite number when dividing 2 finite numbers

so there fore 10 /3 = a number

yet the reason we define it as inf is due to our lack of a word to describe said event

 

the same applies to dividing by square roots, there is no need to multiply by resipricals as there is to reformulate the equation

all that needs to be done is invent a new numeric language that accounts for all of the fallacies of the current one

3.333... is not an infinte number. it just takes an infinite number of decimal places to describe it. the number is still between 3 and 4. very far from infinity i think you'll agree.

In base 3, 10/3 is 10.1.

 

Mind blown!!!!!

10/3 is a rational number. Its decimal representation has an infinite number of digits, but unlike irrational numbers, the digits repeat.

In base 3, 10/3 is 10.1.

 

Mind blown!!!!!

 

That made me realize that Scanners should've been about mathematics.

yet the reason we define it as inf is due to our lack of a word to describe said event

 

Royal "we"?

In base 3, 10/3 is 10.1.

 

Mind blown!!!!!

 

This is kinda vague... Technically, it would be written as [math][\frac{10}{3}]_{10} = 10.1_3[/math].

 

Not that the point is necessary to be made. The OP seems pretty misguided to begin with, I don't suppose he would understand the distinction anyway.

You cannot divide any number by two to equal zero. Thus there is infinity in every number,

you can divide zero by two to get zero. and 8/2 is much less than infinity

10 kilograms of rice and 3 buckets to divide it in is not going to feed the world, because it's not an infinite amount of food.

its alright, im no math genius, rather i enjoy challenging your illogic!

im no math genius,

 

Is there a "Quote of the week" award here?

this is quite simple,

if you divide 10 by 3 on any calculator or ask any [professor], it/they will say that it is 3.3 to the inf

My calculator either says that it's [math]3\frac{1}{3}[/math] or it gives a floating point approximation, I don't think the screen has a way to represent infinite decimal expansions.

If I were to ask a professor they would probably just ROFL at me.

yet this is [fundamentally] wrong

So is the most trivial of proofs for it fallacious then?

[math]3.\bar{3}\times 3 = (3\times 3).(3\times 3)(3\times 3)...(3\times 3)=9.\bar{9}=10 \therefore 10 \div 3 = 3.\bar{3}[/math]

you do not get an [infinite] number when dividing 2 finite numbers

There is no such thing as an infinite number. This is simply a matter of dividing two rational numbers and unsurprisingly getting another rational number in return.

so there fore 10 /3 = a number

Yes, and that number is [math]3.\bar{3}[/math]

yet the reason we define it as inf is due to our lack of a word to describe said event

The word that most people are given is recurring decimal expansion.

 

the same applies to dividing by square roots, there is no need to multiply by [reciprocals?] as there is to reformulate the equation

What?

 

all that needs to be done is invent a new numeric language that accounts for all of the fallacies of the current one

All that needs to be done, is invent a new numeral system? Have you any idea how long the one we use has been in development? You think developing a new one would be a trivial task?

What precisely are the fallacies of our current one?

the fallacies of math simply lays in its foundation of human invention. any language that has its base from humans, is going to have events that cannot be describe or have not been described.

You wont get anywhere by claiming the existence of fallacies and not giving a single example.

 

Maths doesn't need to describe every concept ever (although it does seem to be able to), it's self contained for a reason.

Sigh. Please, use the search button. This topic has been covered so extensively on these forums that I am really sick and tired of closing them.