- #1
YesIam
- 42
- 0
A Math quicky-Can you convert any repeating decimal to a fraction? For example: 0.555... converts to 5/9, and 0.533333... converts to 8/15. So convert 0.88118811... to a fraction.
YesIam said:A Math quicky-Can you convert any repeating decimal to a fraction? For example: 0.555... converts to 5/9, and 0.533333... converts to 8/15. So convert 0.88118811... to a fraction.
Jonathan Scott said:You simply divide by the number of 9s matching the length of the repeated pattern, then reduce any common factors between the numerator and denominator.
So for example, 0.88118811... = 8811/9999. You can then factorise the top and bottom and cancel any common factors. In this case, both the top and bottom have a factor of 99, so I get 89/101. (Wolfram Alpha is good for finding prime factors).
YesIam said:I am, having trouble with this - please show me where I may be going wrong. e.g., In 0.5333... the repeated portion is 3, correct...3/9 does not equal 8/15. At first reading I find the above solution works only if 'all' of the digits of the repeating decimal fraction are included in the 'repeated portion'.
YesIam said:A Math quicky-Can you convert any repeating decimal to a fraction? For example: 0.555... converts to 5/9, and 0.533333... converts to 8/15. So convert 0.88118811... to a fraction.
A two by two matrix A with a 1 in each of the 4 positions has this property (the product A*A equals the sum A+A), but is not a number.YesIam said:2+2.
If you mean to leave, then would it hurt to publish the answer before you go? After all, that author of that 1943 book told you.YesIam said:I have learned that I am not the person that belongs here.
Jimmy Snyder said:If you mean to leave, then would it hurt to publish the answer before you go? After all, that author of that 1943 book told you.
YesIam said:I'll give you a clue. If you will figure it out, you will probably do better than I.
YesIam said:Good morning - I swear, some people that hang around on this forum have to be heavy into self penance or at least clinically masochistic and I do not think that I should be associated with either, but unfortunately, so far I have been guilty . It has been a perfect example of, "Crowd mentality," where some feed on the 'pushed' and 'provoked' thoughts of others. The darn numbers are plain ole garden variety numbers that the typical forth grader should be familiar with. And yes, a forth grader would have a better chance of solving this than ANYONE that I have come across on this forum. I wasn't trying to pull some kind of 'magic' as one implied. So far everyone has just plain been over thinking the problem...possibly due to inexperience, I don't know.
And Jimmy Snyder, I don't want to belittle your possible Fields Medal but that equation has been around for maybe a couple of thousand years and possibly longer. This is what 'char-limit' came up with and told me in his way 'that I didn't know what I was talking about'. His math told him that the only possible answers could be 2 and 0 right after I told him and everyone that there were others. His math is something that a first year algebra student should have been familiar with. This is a common misconception about schools. Schools are where one is familiarized with the TOOLS to help START their real education. It just takes some longer than others to realize this. And then BOREK 'DEMANDS' that I define 'domain' for him. I told him that he has a dictionary like anyone else, so he changes it to demanding that I define 'number' for him. If one doesn't have a dictionary, there is good one on the web. Google 'dictionary Webster's'.
And Davee123...That part about, "That would seem to imply..." may be true but I am not implying any such thing...You have 'implied' by saying that.
And I don't want to hear about sentences should not start with 'and'. I wouldn't do this in formal writing.
YesIam said:It may be in here, I don't know...but how many other numbers can you think of that can be added to or multiplied by itself and get the same answer such as 2 and 0? There are others.
tiny-tim said:https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3060989&postcount=1" …… had (as Evo pointed out) missing information.
"Numbers" without more is not a mathematically correct way to describe elements of a modulo arithemetic.
As Borek gently pointed out, you needed to correct your question by correctly specifying the domain.
YesIam, this is a forum where members try to help each other.
Wasting members' time by posting a question with inaccurate or missing information is not helpful …
and criticising them when they try to help you is ungrateful and unfriendly.
Try playing nice.
YesIam said:It may be in here, I don't know...but how many other numbers can you think of that can be added to or multiplied by itself and get the same answer such as 2 and 0? There are others.
YesIam said:Okay Tiny-tim...If you are saying that I should have said 'more' rather than 'other', I respectively disagree.
And can you imagine the time it would take me to define 'domain' or 'number' for him and get it right?