Jump to content

IM about to blow your mind with a number(10/3)


Zolar V
 Share

Recommended Posts

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

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

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?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guest
This topic is now closed to further replies.
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.