Is 3/3 the same as 1 or not? The Confusion Between Decimal Notation and Numbers

  • Thread starter Thread starter dracobook
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the equivalence of 3/3 and 1, exploring the relationship between decimal notation and fractional representation. It highlights that 1/3 equals 0.333..., and consequently, 3/3 should equal 0.999..., which many mistakenly believe is not the same as 1. Participants clarify that 0.999... is indeed equal to 1, emphasizing that different symbolic representations can denote the same value. The conversation underscores the importance of understanding decimal notation in mathematics to maintain consistency in arithmetic operations. Ultimately, the confusion arises from misinterpreting the nature of numbers versus their decimal representations.
dracobook
Messages
22
Reaction score
0
My friend thought of this some time ago...
1/3 is equal to .333333...
2/3 is equal to 2*(1/3) or .66666...
3/3 is equal to 3*(1/3). If 1/3 is equal to .333... then wouldn't 3/3 be equal to .9999...? Also, isn't .9999... not the same as 1?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
You should search this. Analogues of this question have come up before.
 
Also, isn't .9999... not the same as 1?

Double negatives! I don't think you're asking quite what you meant to ask. :biggrin:

0.999~ is the same number as 1. That the same number can have different symbolic representations shouldn't be surprising... after all, you know that the fractions 1/2 and 3/6 are the same number!

Examples like the one you posted are demonstrations of why mathematicians decided to require that 0.999~ = 1 in the decimal number system: otherwise arithmetic would not work nicely.
 
Hurkyl said:
Double negatives! I don't think you're asking quite what you meant to ask.

Actually, Hurkyl, reading the whole post I think this time the double negative was exactly what he meant. Many people who confuse the "decimal notation" for numbers with the numbers themselves think that 0.9999... is not 1. Here I think the OP was saying: "Isn't it the case that 0.9999... is not the same as 1" and the double negative is perfectly correct.
 
Insights auto threads is broken atm, so I'm manually creating these for new Insight articles. In Dirac’s Principles of Quantum Mechanics published in 1930 he introduced a “convenient notation” he referred to as a “delta function” which he treated as a continuum analog to the discrete Kronecker delta. The Kronecker delta is simply the indexed components of the identity operator in matrix algebra Source: https://www.physicsforums.com/insights/what-exactly-is-diracs-delta-function/ by...
Suppose ,instead of the usual x,y coordinate system with an I basis vector along the x -axis and a corresponding j basis vector along the y-axis we instead have a different pair of basis vectors ,call them e and f along their respective axes. I have seen that this is an important subject in maths My question is what physical applications does such a model apply to? I am asking here because I have devoted quite a lot of time in the past to understanding convectors and the dual...
Thread 'Imaginary Pythagoras'
I posted this in the Lame Math thread, but it's got me thinking. Is there any validity to this? Or is it really just a mathematical trick? Naively, I see that i2 + plus 12 does equal zero2. But does this have a meaning? I know one can treat the imaginary number line as just another axis like the reals, but does that mean this does represent a triangle in the complex plane with a hypotenuse of length zero? Ibix offered a rendering of the diagram using what I assume is matrix* notation...
Back
Top