Zolar V Posted October 22, 2008 Posted October 22, 2008 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
insane_alien Posted October 22, 2008 Posted October 22, 2008 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.
Mr Skeptic Posted October 22, 2008 Posted October 22, 2008 10/3 is a rational number. Its decimal representation has an infinite number of digits, but unlike irrational numbers, the digits repeat.
Gilded Posted October 22, 2008 Posted October 22, 2008 In base 3, 10/3 is 10.1. Mind blown!!!!! That made me realize that Scanners should've been about mathematics.
John Cuthber Posted October 22, 2008 Posted October 22, 2008 yet the reason we define it as inf is due to our lack of a word to describe said event Royal "we"?
Kyrisch Posted October 23, 2008 Posted October 23, 2008 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.
SamWalker Posted October 23, 2008 Posted October 23, 2008 You cannot divide any number by two to equal zero. Thus there is infinity in every number,
insane_alien Posted October 23, 2008 Posted October 23, 2008 you can divide zero by two to get zero. and 8/2 is much less than infinity
CaptainPanic Posted October 23, 2008 Posted October 23, 2008 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.
Zolar V Posted October 23, 2008 Author Posted October 23, 2008 its alright, im no math genius, rather i enjoy challenging your illogic!
John Cuthber Posted October 23, 2008 Posted October 23, 2008 im no math genius, Is there a "Quote of the week" award here?
the tree Posted October 23, 2008 Posted October 23, 2008 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] wrongSo 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 numbersThere 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 numberYes, 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 eventThe 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 equationWhat? all that needs to be done is invent a new numeric language that accounts for all of the fallacies of the current oneAll 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?
Zolar V Posted October 24, 2008 Author Posted October 24, 2008 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.
the tree Posted October 24, 2008 Posted October 24, 2008 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.
Dave Posted October 24, 2008 Posted October 24, 2008 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.
Recommended Posts