Why are numbers between 0 and 1 fractions?

[CuriosOne]

Why are numbers between 0 and 1 fractions?

And what base uses this "rule"?

Base 10??? As in % 

??? Hopefully this question doesn't receive "scrutiny"

It's ok if nobody doesn't  know the answer..lol

 

Edited December 12, 2020 by CuriosOne

[MigL]

Fraction means expressing as a ratio of two numbers.
For example 

1/2 = 0.5     and    1/5 =0.2     are numbers between 0 and 1 expressed as fractions, 
but, you can also have
3/2 = 1.5    and     6/3 = 2      which are not between  0 and 1 .
 

What do you think 'fraction means ?
And what is this obsession you have with number system bases.
What do you think 'base' means ?

[swansont]

12 hours ago, CuriosOne said:

Why are numbers between 0 and 1 fractions?

For the same reason numbers between 1 and 2 can be fractions. Or rather, possibly can be expressed as fractions.

 

[studiot]

13 hours ago, CuriosOne said:

Why are numbers between 0 and 1 fractions?

And what base uses this "rule"?

Base 10??? As in % 

??? Hopefully this question doesn't receive "scrutiny"

It's ok if nobody doesn't  know the answer..lol

 

 

First you need to know that 0 and 1 are fractions themselves !

[math]0 = \frac{0}{1}\quad and\quad 1 = \frac{1}{1}[/math]

Although we don't usually write them like that.

Mathematics recognises a series of 'number systems' that are nested like Russian dolls.

The outer one is the most complicated and the number systems get simpler inside just as the outer doll is the biggest and the dolls get smaller inside.

For number systems the more complicated (outer) system contains or includes all the simpler systems within it.

The simplest system is called the natural numbers or counting numbers.  1,2,3,4,5......    There is no zero in these.

Then we have the positive inetgers if we want the same thing but with a zero   0,1,2,3,4,5......

The we have both positive and negative integers  ...-5,-4,-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3,4,5......      These are all the integers.

The we have the rational numbers : ratios of two integers ie fractions

[math]\frac{1}{2},\frac{{25}}{{39}}etc[/math]

We do not need another category for the ratios of decimal numbers since they can always be written as the ratio of two integers

[math]\frac{{2.5}}{{3.138}}is\;the\;same\;as\frac{{2500}}{{3138}}[/math]

 

Which is a number system as far as you have asked since it includes all the fractions lying between 0 and 1 that can be written.

And it also answers you question about number bases.
Simply it does not matter which base you choose as shown by the example of rewriting a decimal fraction as the ratio of two integers.

But there are yet more important numbers that cannot be written this way. An example would be the reciprocal of the square root of 2, or the square root of 0.5.

So we come to the what are called the real numbers as corresponding to our outer Russian doll, and includes all these numbers as well as all the fractional ones.

I hope you can see nesting idea from this.

 

There are yet more complicated layers of 'numbers' but I will leave it at that.

 

 

[CuriosOne]

2 hours ago, studiot said:

 

First you need to know that 0 and 1 are fractions themselves !

0=01and1=11

Although we don't usually write them like that.

Mathematics recognises a series of 'number systems' that are nested like Russian dolls.

The outer one is the most complicated and the number systems get simpler inside just as the outer doll is the biggest and the dolls get smaller inside.

For number systems the more complicated (outer) system contains or includes all the simpler systems within it.

The simplest system is called the natural numbers or counting numbers.  1,2,3,4,5......    There is no zero in these.

Then we have the positive inetgers if we want the same thing but with a zero   0,1,2,3,4,5......

The we have both positive and negative integers  ...-5,-4,-3,-2,-1,0,1,2,3,4,5......      These are all the integers.

The we have the rational numbers : ratios of two integers ie fractions

12,2539etc

We do not need another category for the ratios of decimal numbers since they can always be written as the ratio of two integers

2.53.138isthesameas25003138

 

Which is a number system as far as you have asked since it includes all the fractions lying between 0 and 1 that can be written.

And it also answers you question about number bases.
Simply it does not matter which base you choose as shown by the example of rewriting a decimal fraction as the ratio of two integers.

But there are yet more important numbers that cannot be written this way. An example would be the reciprocal of the square root of 2, or the square root of 0.5.

So we come to the what are called the real numbers as corresponding to our outer Russian doll, and includes all these numbers as well as all the fractional ones.

I hope you can see nesting idea from this.

 

There are yet more complicated layers of 'numbers' but I will leave it at that.

 

 

Understood...But when this explanation involves "nature" we bump into issues..

 "A very big issue" with the base part..

I will use Gravity for example:

6.67 "times" base 10 to its -11 power

 .01× 667 = 6.67 

Times a number between 0 and 1 as a fraction.

As 1/0.1 = 10^2 or 100 cm for 1 meter "averge"

It looks like the speed of light to me..

Then we have Newton's units.

Units of N m^2 / kg^2 

1 newton meter is said to be the torque "of circular force."

Base 10 "Sounds like a ratio, or frequency or derivitive for that matter" in relation to light...And maybe Base 10 proves the more "conventional" ???

Looks like base 10 is very interesting..

"""My point is, "base 10" appears to be the most popular choice in our metric system..""" not to mention that when you see g itself 9.8 m/s^-2 it appears to be closer to base 10 than any other base..

This is what has me "and so many others" confused.....

Or maybe science and numbers are inconsistent with nature...

 

 

3 hours ago, swansont said:

For the same reason numbers between 1 and 2 can be fractions. Or rather, possibly can be expressed as fractions.

 

""""Was This The Idea For Limits???""""

f( x+ dx) - f(x)/ dx

as x->0

Edited December 12, 2020 by CuriosOne

[swansont]

2 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

Understood...But when this explanation involves "nature" we bump into issues..

But we’re talking about math

 

2 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

 "A very big issue" with the base part..

I will use Gravity for example:

6.67 "times" base 10 to its -11 power

 .01× 667 = 6.67 

Times a number between 0 and 1 as a fraction.

Um, no. Just 6.67, which is expressed as a decimal, not a feaction.

 

2 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

As 1/0.1 = 10^2 or 100 cm for 1 meter "averge"

It looks like the speed of light to me..

You need glasses, then.

 

2 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

Then we have Newton's units.

Units of N m^2 / kg^2 

Which are not numbers

2 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

1 newton meter is said to be the torque "of circular force."

Sometimes. Sometimes it’s energy. Sometimes it’s neither. Depends on the context. 

2 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

Base 10 "Sounds like a ratio, or frequency or derivitive for that matter" in relation to light...And maybe Base 10 proves the more "conventional" ???

Looks like base 10 is very interesting..

"""My point is, "base 10" appears to be the most popular choice in our metric system.."""

Gee, imagine that...metric uses base 10

2 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

not to mention that when you see g itself 9.8 m/s^-2 it appears to be closer to base 10 than any other base..

“closer to base 10” is meaningless. The number is expressed in base 10.

2 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

This is what has me "and so many others" confused.....

Who are the others?

[CuriosOne]

6 minutes ago, swansont said:

But we’re talking about math

 

Um, no. Just 6.67, which is expressed as a decimal, not a feaction.

 

You need glasses, then.

 

Which are not numbers

Sometimes. Sometimes it’s energy. Sometimes it’s neither. Depends on the context. 

Gee, imagine that...metric uses base 10

“closer to base 10” is meaningless. The number is expressed in base 10.

Who are the others?

what is the difference between a decimal and a fraction??? 

From Google..

more ... A fraction where the denominator (the bottom number) is a power of ten (such as 10, 100, 1000, etc). You can write decimal fractions with a decimal point (and no denominator), which make it easier to do calculations like addition and multiplication on fractions.

15 hours ago, MigL said:

Fraction means expressing as a ratio of two numbers.
For example 

1/2 = 0.5     and    1/5 =0.2     are numbers between 0 and 1 expressed as fractions, 
but, you can also have
3/2 = 1.5    and     6/3 = 2      which are not between  0 and 1 .
 

What do you think 'fraction means ?
And what is this obsession you have with number system bases.
What do you think 'base' means ?

""""I just realized I'm getting decimal bases and fractions "wrong"""""

GLAD I ASK BASIC QUESTIONS..

more ... A fraction where the denominator (the bottom number) is a power of ten (such as 10, 100, 1000, etc). You can write decimal fractions with a decimal point (and no denominator), which make it easier to do calculations like addition and multiplication on fractions.

Edited December 12, 2020 by CuriosOne

[swansont]

26 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

what is the difference between a decimal and a fraction??? 

From Google..

more ... A fraction where the denominator (the bottom number) is a power of ten (such as 10, 100, 1000, etc). You can write decimal fractions with a decimal point (and no denominator), which make it easier to do calculations like addition and multiplication on fractions.

""""I just realized I'm getting decimal bases and fractions "wrong"""""

Are you still confused, or did your search answer the question?

26 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

GLAD I ASK BASIC QUESTIONS..

 

Questions are fine, if based on reasonable premises. The main issue I have is when you make assertions, without supporting them.

[studiot]

50 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

what is the difference between a decimal and a fraction??? 

From Google..

more ... A fraction where the denominator (the bottom number) is a power of ten (such as 10, 100, 1000, etc). You can write decimal fractions with a decimal point (and no denominator), which make it easier to do calculations like addition and multiplication on fractions.

""""I just realized I'm getting decimal bases and fractions "wrong"""""

GLAD I ASK BASIC QUESTIONS..

more ... A fraction where the denominator (the bottom number) is a power of ten (such as 10, 100, 1000, etc). You can write decimal fractions with a decimal point (and no denominator), which make it easier to do calculations like addition and multiplication on fractions.

 

Just to clear something up.

The number itself is the same whatever "base" you use to represent it.

It is the representation in each different base that will be different.

It is often proposed that primitive Man started off with base 10 because he had 10 fingers and counted on them.
This proposal actually runs counter to archeological evidence which suggests that different primitive Men tried different base systems in different places and finally more sophisticated Man settled on the 10 base because he had 10 fingers and still counted on them.

 

Also you have introduced physical units; these are quite separate from the numbers themselves.

The volume of my glass of beer is the same whether I measure in in pints, litres, quarts, hogsheads or US gallons.

But the number representation in each unit system.

This is perhaps where you should be thinking twice.

 

[CuriosOne]

1 hour ago, swansont said:

Are you still confused, or did your search answer the question?

Questions are fine, if based on reasonable premises. The main issue I have is when you make assertions, without supporting them.

""Yes im still confused on decimal and fractions.""

My assertions are just "random" thoughts" I would "never" assert anything even if I knew it 100%

1 hour ago, studiot said:

 

Just to clear something up.

The number itself is the same whatever "base" you use to represent it.

It is the representation in each different base that will be different.

It is often proposed that primitive Man started off with base 10 because he had 10 fingers and counted on them.
This proposal actually runs counter to archeological evidence which suggests that different primitive Men tried different base systems in different places and finally more sophisticated Man settled on the 10 base because he had 10 fingers and still counted on them.

 

Also you have introduced physical units; these are quite separate from the numbers themselves.

The volume of my glass of beer is the same whether I measure in in pints, litres, quarts, hogsheads or US gallons.

But the number representation in each unit system.

This is perhaps where you should be thinking twice.

 

I guess this leads to the more popular choice of ratios and forces of which have no dimension..Not to mention "matter" and attraction without a force of attraction, such as earth and the moon, or electron clouds attracted to protons.....

"I guess." 

So what's the point of units then?

Do we even agree on what base to use??

 

 

[swansont]

20 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

""Yes im still confused on decimal and fractions.""

3/5 is a fraction - portrayed as a ratio of two whole numbers

3/5 = 0.6  

0.6 is a decimal, which is the result from evaluating the division of that ratio, in base 10

 

 

20 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

My assertions are just "random" thoughts" I would "never" assert anything even if I knew it 100%

When you state something as true, without support, it is an assertion. 

 

20 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

I guess this leads to the more popular choice of ratios and forces of which have no dimension..Not to mention "matter" and attraction without a force of attraction, such as earth and the moon, or electron clouds attracted to protons.....

 Math is math. Physics uses math, but is not math.

 

20 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

"I guess." 

So what's the point of units then?

They let you keep track of physical parameters.

 

20 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

Do we even agree on what base to use??

Usually.

The choice often one of ease of use, or possibly convention. Base 10 is the default in many cases, as I said.

[MigL]

But base two ( binary ) and base 16 ( hexadecimal ) are used in computer programming.

[CuriosOne]

2 hours ago, swansont said:

3/5 is a fraction - portrayed as a ratio of two whole numbers

3/5 = 0.6  

0.6 is a decimal, which is the result from evaluating the division of that ratio, in base 10

 

 

When you state something as true, without support, it is an assertion. 

 

 Math is math. Physics uses math, but is not math.

 

They let you keep track of physical parameters.

 

Usually.

The choice often one of ease of use, or possibly convention. Base 10 is the default in many cases, as I said.

I just did some calculations with this information and I must truly say thanks..

Calculus truly makes ""more"" sense now, and I'm hoping other science members whom had years of agonizing confusion read this thread.

1 hour ago, MigL said:

But base two ( binary ) and base 16 ( hexadecimal ) are used in computer programming.

 0 and 1 uses the concept of "distance" 

In computer science..

i = 0

while i < length ('  ')

i = i + 1

It usually applies a distance in a string of characters, numbers or letters, the very 1st character is 0..

 

However, I see a relationship here to length or distances in general..

Edited December 12, 2020 by CuriosOne

[MigL]

42 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

0 and 1 uses the concept of "distance" 
In computer science..
i = 0
while i < length ('  ')
i = i + 1
It usually applies a distance in a string of characters, numbers or letters, the very 1st character is 0..
However, I see a relationship here to length or distances in general..

I have no clue what you mean by any of this.
This is one of the 'assertions' Swansont warned you about.
If you don't understand a concept, or are unsure, ask the question; don't go jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions.

[joigus]

The evaluation or products --or fractions, for that matter-- does not depend on the base. Take, eg., \( 7\times3=21 \).

In binary, the numbers \( 7 \) and \( 3 \) are written,

\[7={\color{red}1}\times2^{2}+{\color{red}1}\times2^{1}+{\color{red}1}\times2^{0}={\color{red}1{\color{red}1{\color{red}1}}}\]

\[3={\color{red}0}\times2^{2}+{\color{red}1}\times2^{1}+{\color{red}1}\times2^{0}={\color{red}0{\color{red}1{\color{red}1}}}\]

You can even reproduce the algorithm for multiplication that you learnt at school, you only have to remember that, in binary, \( 1+1 \) gives zero, and carries \( 1 \). Then,

\[\begin{array}{cccccc} & & & {\color{red}0} & {\color{red}1} & {\color{red}1}\\ & & \times & {\color{red}1} & {\color{red}1} & {\color{red}1}\\ & & & 0 & 1 & 1\\ & & 0 & 1 & 1\\ & 0 & 1 & 1\\ & {\color{green}1} & {\color{green}0} & {\color{green}1} & {\color{green}0} & {\color{green}1} \end{array}\]

Input numbers are in red, intermediate calculations are in black, and output is in green. Sure enough, it gives you \( 10101 \) which, in binary, is \( 21 \),

\[{\color{red}1}\times2^{4}+{\color{red}0}\times2^{3}+{\color{red}1}\times2^{2}+{\color{red}0}\times2^{1}+{\color{red}1}\times2^{0}=16+4+1=21\]

Floating-point numbers are floating-point numbers in any base. For example, \( \frac{1}{2} \) is \( 0.5 \) in decimal.

In binary, eg, the only peculiarity is that they are expanded in terms of,

\[\frac{1}{2}=0.1\] 

\[\frac{1}{2^{2}}=0.25\]

\[\frac{1}{2^{3}}=0.125\]

etc.

Here's a trick with which you can convince yourself that decimal numbers in base 10 are decimal numbers in base 2 too:

https://indepth.dev/posts/1019/the-simple-math-behind-decimal-binary-conversion-algorithms

By successively multiplying by \( 2 \) and extracting the integer part as a sum of ones you can in principle get the whole series of floating-point digits (zeroes and ones).

You must distinguish digits --(\( 0 \) and \( 1 \) in binary, \( 0 \), \( 1 \), \( 2 \), \( 3 \), \( 4 \), \( 7 \), \( 8 \), \( 9 \), in decimal, or \( 0 \), \( 1 \), \( 2 \), \( 3 \), \( 4 \), \( 7 \), \( 8 \), \( 9 \), \( a \), \( b \), \( c \), \( d \), \( e \), \( f \) in hexadecimal--. from the base powers -- \( 1=2^0 \), \( 2=2^1 \) etc. in binary; \( 1=10^0 \), \(10=10^1 \), etc., in decimal, and so on.

You can use the same trick for hexadecimal base with the help of the page I gave you and the multiplication table,

\[\begin{array}{cccccccccccccccccc} {\color{teal}\times} & {\color{red}0} & {\color{red}1} & {\color{red}2} & {\color{red}3} & {\color{red}4} & {\color{red}5} & {\color{red}6} & {\color{red}7} & {\color{red}8} & {\color{red}9} & {\color{red}a} & {\color{red}b} & {\color{red}c} & {\color{red}d} & {\color{red}e} & {\color{red}f} & {\color{red}1{\color{red}0}}\\ {\color{red}0} & {\color{purple}0} & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0 & 0\\ {\color{red}1} & 0 & {\color{purple}1} & 2 & 3 & 4 & 5 & 6 & 7 & 8 & 9 & a & b & c & d & e & f & 10\\ {\color{red}2} & 0 & 2 & {\color{purple}4} & 6 & 8 & a & c & e & g & 12 & 14 & 16 & 18 & 1a & 1c & 1e & 20\\ {\color{red}3} & 0 & 3 & 6 & {\color{purple}9} & c & f & 12 & 15 & 18 & 1b & 1e & 21 & 24 & 27 & 2a & 2d & 30\\ {\color{red}4} & 0 & 4 & 8 & c & {\color{purple}g} & 14 & 18 & 1c & 20 & 24 & 28 & 2c & 30 & 34 & 38 & 3c & 40\\ {\color{red}5} & 0 & 5 & a & f & 14 & {\color{purple}1{\color{purple}9}} & 1e & 23 & 28 & 2d & 32 & 37 & 3c & 41 & 46 & 4b & 50\\ {\color{red}6} & 0 & 6 & c & 12 & 18 & 1e & {\color{purple}2{\color{purple}4}} & 2a & 30 & 36 & 3c & 42 & 48 & 4e & 54 & 5a & 60\\ {\color{red}7} & 0 & 7 & e & 15 & 1c & 23 & 2a & {\color{purple}3{\color{purple}1}} & 38 & 3f & 46 & 4d & 54 & 5b & 62 & 69 & 70\\ {\color{red}8} & 0 & 8 & g & 18 & 20 & 28 & 30 & 38 & {\color{purple}4{\color{purple}0}} & 48 & 50 & 58 & 60 & 68 & 70 & 76 & 80\\ {\color{red}9} & 0 & 9 & 12 & 1b & 24 & 2d & 36 & 3f & 48 & {\color{purple}5{\color{purple}1}} & 5a & 63 & 6c & 75 & 7e & 87 & 90\\ {\color{red}a} & 0 & a & 14 & 1e & 28 & 32 & 3c & 46 & 50 & 5a & {\color{purple}6{\color{purple}4}} & 6e & 78 & 82 & 8c & 96 & a0\\ {\color{red}b} & 0 & b & 16 & 21 & 2c & 37 & 42 & 4d & 58 & 63 & 6e & {\color{purple}7{\color{purple}9}} & 84 & 8f & 9a & a5 & b0\\ {\color{red}c} & 0 & c & 18 & 24 & 30 & 3c & 48 & 54 & 60 & 6c & 78 & 84 & {\color{purple}9{\color{purple}0}} & 9c & a8 & b4 & c0\\ {\color{red}d} & 0 & d & 1a & 27 & 34 & 41 & 4e & 5b & 68 & 75 & 82 & 8f & 9c & {\color{purple}a{\color{purple}9}} & b6 & c3 & d0\\ {\color{red}e} & 0 & e & 1c & 2a & 38 & 46 & 54 & 62 & 70 & 7e & 8c & 9a & a8 & b6 & {\color{purple}c{\color{purple}4}} & d2 & e0\\ {\color{red}f} & 0 & f & 1e & 2d & 3c & 4b & 5a & 69 & 76 & 87 & 96 & a5 & b4 & c3 & d2 & {\color{purple}e{\color{purple}1}} & f0\\ {\color{red}1{\color{red}0}} & 0 & 10 & 20 & 30 & 40 & 50 & 60 & 70 & 80 & 90 & a0 & b0 & c0 & d0 & e0 & f0 & {\color{purple}1{\color{purple}0{\color{purple}0}}} \end{array}\]

In any base you must use as many digits as your base (always a positive integer different from one). In hexadecimal you can only use \(0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,a,b,c,d,e,f\).

Some properties of real numbers are counter-intuitive, and you seem to have lots of problems with them. For example: two different real numbers can never "touch each other" (be just next to each other with no other real number in between). This property you are grappling with is not one of those counter-intuitive properties.

Swansont, MigL, and Studiot are doing a great job of explaining. I've tried to add auxiliary explanations that you're free to ignore if you find they don't help you.

And, as @studiot said, be careful to distinguish pure numbers from physical quantities.

Physical scalars are a different thing. They carry units. So they are subject to transformation laws. Only ratios of scalars are pure numbers.

As a final exercise, let's write \( \frac{1}{5} \) in binary:

\[\frac{1}{5}=0.2\]

\[2\times0.2={\color{red}0}+{\color{red}0}.4\]

\[2\times0.4={\color{red}0}+{\color{red}0}.8\]

\[2\times0.8={\color{red}1}+0.6\]

\[2\times1.6={\color{red}1}+{\color{red}1}+0.2\]

etc. You keep going. The numbers in red are the binary digits of your fractional number. You get,

\[\frac{1}{5}=0.001100110011...\:\textrm{(base two)}\]

Which means,

\[\frac{1}{5}={\color{red}0}\times\frac{1}{2}+{\color{red}0}\times\frac{1}{2^{2}}+{\color{red}1}\times\frac{1}{2^{3}}+{\color{red}1}\times\frac{1}{2^{4}}+{\color{red}0}\times\frac{1}{2^{5}}+{\color{red}0}\times\frac{1}{2^{6}}+\cdots\]

 

Edited December 13, 2020 by joigus

[CuriosOne]

18 hours ago, MigL said:

I have no clue what you mean by any of this.
This is one of the 'assertions' Swansont warned you about.
If you don't understand a concept, or are unsure, ask the question; don't go jumping to unsubstantiated conclusions.

That information was directly out of computer science books the "while and if statements" uses a string of number, 6556444 or a string of text dghggh and assigns a value of 0 to 1 to the string variable it creates a "length" or distances..

Edited December 13, 2020 by CuriosOne

[Bufofrog]

10 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

That information was directly out of computer science books the "while and if statements" uses a string of number, 6556444 or a string of text dghggh and assigns a value of 0 to 1 to the string variable it creates a "length" or distances..

You got that concept wrong as usual.

I now assume that you are either a poorly written bot or a person just pulling our collective leg.  Nobody could be that confused and still be able use a computer.

So have fun, I guess.

[joigus]

CuriosOne, I've never seen anyone who understands so little and claims to understand so much at the same time.

I'm very nearly done with you too.

[swansont]

17 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

That information was directly out of computer science books the "while and if statements" uses a string of number, 6556444 or a string of text dghggh and assigns a value of 0 to 1 to the string variable it creates a "length" or distances..

String length is a real concept, but it bears only a passing resemblance to what you said.

[CuriosOne]

10 minutes ago, joigus said:

CuriosOne, I've never seen anyone who understands so little and claims to understand so much at the same time.

I'm very nearly done with you too.

That's funny because if I were Newton I'd say the same of your particle waves..🤣

All that computer stuff you placed up was not available to Newton, it did not exist in his time, so then why should anyone in our time bother with it..

Also, I'm not able to respond on that post you replied too "for some reason."

13 minutes ago, swansont said:

String length is a real concept, but it bears only a passing resemblance to what you said.

I'm just seeing the relationship of time, length and distance and how physics creates a digital model that works in the physical world,  QM is digital..

And yes, I already know no one wants to hear that..

[joigus]

4 hours ago, joigus said:

In binary, eg, the only peculiarity is that they are expanded in terms of,

\[\frac{1}{2}=0.1\]

 

Sorry, I wrote 1/2 in binary. As I was presenting them in decimal, it should be,

\[\frac{1}{2}=0.5\]

[CuriosOne]

20 minutes ago, Bufofrog said:

You got that concept wrong as usual.

I now assume that you are either a poorly written bot or a person just pulling our collective leg.  Nobody could be that confused and still be able use a computer.

So have fun, I guess.

Maybe whomever created the concept in the 1st place "didn't understand it well enough to be universal." There are better teachers out there """your obviously not one of them.""""

After all, common sense says this modern stuff did not existed in Newton's time..

[joigus]

6 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

All that computer stuff you placed up was not available to Newton,

I didn't write any computer code. That was all by hand. They way it was done before computers arrived, other that Leibniz's calculating machine.

[CuriosOne]

3 minutes ago, joigus said:

Sorry, I wrote 1/2 in binary. As I was presenting them in decimal, it should be,

 

12=0.5

 

This is what I've been seeing for years..

A sequence that does not resemble ordinary numbers, that when used with all known calculations resembles something like oragami...

I'm glad I ask these questions...

 

8 minutes ago, joigus said:

I didn't write any computer code. That was all by hand. They way it was done before computers arrived, other that Leibniz's calculating machine.

So there appears to be a conflict between the better choice..??

[joigus]

5 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

I'm glad I ask these questions...

That's probably because you're ready to ignore all answers and keep diverting into new questions.

8 minutes ago, CuriosOne said:

So there appears to be a conflict between the better choice..??

Case in point. Is that a question, or word origami?