- #1

Drakkith

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

- 21,152

- 4,993

You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

You should upgrade or use an alternative browser.

- Thread starter Drakkith
- Start date

- #1

Drakkith

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

- 21,152

- 4,993

- #2

arildno

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

Gold Member

Dearly Missed

- 9,970

- 134

Short answer: No.

- #3

Drakkith

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

- 21,152

- 4,993

Short answer: No.

Hrmm. Why is that?

- #4

- 699

- 6

Do the math in a base 3 number system rather than a decimal system.

Here, 1/3 = 0.1, and 2/3 = 0.2

Any number system will be inadaquate for representing some rational numbers with a finite number of digits. This is just an artifact.

- #5

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 14,916

- 19

What could it possibly mean for the division to end?When you divide 1 by 3, you get .33333... repeating forever of course. My question is whether this operation could ever be considered to end.

If you instead meant "if I try to compute this quantity by using the long division algorithm, will the long division algorithm ever finish?", then the answer is as arildno said.

- #6

arildno

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

Gold Member

Dearly Missed

- 9,970

- 134

What you are confused about is the difference between a

This is a subtle difference rarely touched upon in sachool maths, with profound consequences:

What you call "division" is actually "how to represent some number, usually defined as a fraction, by means of powers of ten".

1/3 is, bi

Now, you CAN of course ask:

"How can this number be represented by powers of ten?".

The school answer to this is "by the process WE call division".

The result is that there is no

- #7

Drakkith

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

- 21,152

- 4,993

What could it possibly mean for the division to end?

If you instead meant "if I try to compute this quantity by using the long division algorithm, will the long division algorithm ever finish?", then the answer is as arildno said.

If i divide 10 by 5, i get 2, with nothing left over. The operation (the division) has ended, correct? Unless you could say that there are infinite 0's after the 2.0. Thats what I meant.

- #8

Drakkith

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

- 21,152

- 4,993

What you are confused about is the difference between anumber, and how it is to berepresentedaccording to some principle.

This is a subtle difference rarely touched upon in sachool maths, with profound consequences:

What you call "division" is actually "how to represent some number, usually defined as a fraction, by means of powers of ten".

1/3 is, biits fundamental definition"that number, which multiplied with 3 yields 1".

Now, you CAN of course ask:

"How can this number be represented by powers of ten?".

The school answer to this is "by the process WE call division".

The result is that there is nofinitesum of powers of ten that actually equals 1/3, but that, in itsinfinitelimit, equals 1/3

I think i see what your saying. If i try to divide by a 0 is this an invalid operation, or is it similar to the above? I've always been decent at math but never actually gotten into some of the details like this before. Thanks for your answer!

- #9

- 1,013

- 70

I think i see what your saying. If i try to divide by a 0 is this an invalid operation, or is it similar to the above? I've always been decent at math but never actually gotten into some of the details like this before. Thanks for your answer!

Division by 0 is a different problem, it is not merely a problem of representing the number as powers of some base number; there is no way to define the operation meaningfully.

Division is defined in most cases as being an "undoing" of multiplication. That is a/b = c if and only if b*c = a. In technical terms, we call it an inverse operation to multiplication. However, there are some multiplications that cannot be undone.

When we have 18/9, we are asked to solve the multiplication problem 9*x = 18 for x, which we can see by inspection is 2, and only 2.

What about 1/0 ? We are asked to solve the problem 0*x = 1. But there is no number x for which this statement holds true, thus 1/0 is no number.

0/0 yields the equation 0*x = 0. In this case, x can be any number! We have chosen the convention that this is also not defined, as it does not yield a definite value for x.

There is more formality built around this for purposes of rigor, and there are some algebraic structures where division by 0 is defined, but in the algebra you are used to, that of real numbers, it yields an impossible equation.

- #10

Drakkith

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

- 21,152

- 4,993

Division by 0 is a different problem, it is not merely a problem of representing the number as powers of some base number; there is no way to define the operation meaningfully.

Division is defined in most cases as being an "undoing" of multiplication. That is a/b = c if and only if b*c = a. In technical terms, we call it an inverse operation to multiplication. However, there are some multiplications that cannot be undone.

When we have 18/9, we are asked to solve the multiplication problem 9*x = 18 for x, which we can see by inspection is 2, and only 2.

What about 1/0 ? We are asked to solve the problem 0*x = 1. But there is no number x for which this statement holds true, thus 1/0 is no number.

0/0 yields the equation 0*x = 0. In this case, x can be any number! We have chosen the convention that this is also not defined, as it does not yield a definite value for x.

There is more formality built around this for purposes of rigor, and there are some algebraic structures where division by 0 is defined, but in the algebra you are used to, that of real numbers, it yields an impossible equation.

Thanks!

- #11

HallsofIvy

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 41,833

- 963

Short answer: No.

Because when you divide 1 by 3 and get 0.3333...., any "process" you used isHrmm. Why is that?

Another way of looking at it: 0.3333.... means .3+ .03+ .003+ .0003+...= [itex]3\sum_{n=1}^\infty .1^n[/itex] and an "infinite sum" is defined as the

- #12

disregardthat

Science Advisor

- 1,861

- 34

- #13

Drakkith

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

- 21,152

- 4,993

Ahh ok i see now. Thanks alot all!

- #14

- 95

- 0

Mathematicians often opt for fractions rather than decimals because they are more accurate.

The statement,

[tex]\frac{1}{3}=3.333333[/tex]

is incorrect.

When writing this equation down, one should always use the "aproximately equal to" sign.

This statement is correct:

[tex]\frac{1}{3}\approx3.333333[/tex]

- #15

HallsofIvy

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 41,833

- 963

No, it0.33333... Is what we call the decimal aproximation.

That's a strange statement. "1/3" and "0.3333..." are both exact. But it's especially peculiar since you just said that 0.3333... was a "decimal approximation".Mathematicians often opt for fractions rather than decimals because they are more accurate.

But the statement "1/3= 0.3333..."The statement,

[tex]\frac{1}{3}=3.333333[/tex]

is incorrect.

When writing this equation down, one should always use the "aproximately equal to" sign.

This statement is correct:

[tex]\frac{1}{3}\approx3.333333[/tex]

(While 1/3 is not any where near "3.33333"! You have misplaced the decimal.)

Last edited by a moderator:

- #16

- 20

- 0

for example

consider that peter is sick

now there are two ways of informing his mom

1)by post

2)by phone(where informing by phone is not a good method due to burred voice due to network but it is far better then post)

*Numbers in decimal makes Algeria operations like addition and other stuffs easier where you do not need to find lcm before addition..probably we have failed to invent better system to represent fraction so we have to go with the one with the loophole.

- #17

- 1,331

- 40

How we represent numbers has little to do with their actual value.

1/3 = .333.... repeating.

That's not to say the problem doesn't "end." It just means that within our base 10 number system, it can't be expressed with an "end" (besides of course any notation used to symbolize endless repetition.)

0.333.. is just as exact and rational as 0.5. Merely how we represent them varies.

KEY:

This is correct.

You can see it, in front of you with long division.

Divide 3 into 1, behind the decimal, so 3 into 10, essentially.

3 goes into 10 3 times, with a remainder of 1, so 3 into 10 again.

3 STILL goes into 10 3 times, with a remainder of 1.

You will be doing this infinitely, therefore a representing an infinite line of 3's is EXACTLY equal to 1/3.

Another confusion people often have with this is that they tend to think of repeating decimals as "growing." In other words, they think that since we can never write an infinite number of 3's, the number never "reaches" 1/3. .3 repeating is a number, it's value doesn't "grow" or "reach" anything, it has a fixed, exact value, which is 1/3.

This ties in with misconception that pi or any irrational number don't have fixed, exact values, which they do. Pi's exact value can be described as the circumference divided by the diameter of any circle, or pi. Just because I can't adequately write its exact value in decimal form doesn't mean it has no exact value.

1/3 = .333.... repeating.

That's not to say the problem doesn't "end." It just means that within our base 10 number system, it can't be expressed with an "end" (besides of course any notation used to symbolize endless repetition.)

0.333.. is just as exact and rational as 0.5. Merely how we represent them varies.

KEY:

No, it isn't an approximation. 0.3333..., with the dots meaning "the 3's keep repeating" is exactly the same as 1/3.

This is correct.

You can see it, in front of you with long division.

Divide 3 into 1, behind the decimal, so 3 into 10, essentially.

3 goes into 10 3 times, with a remainder of 1, so 3 into 10 again.

3 STILL goes into 10 3 times, with a remainder of 1.

You will be doing this infinitely, therefore a representing an infinite line of 3's is EXACTLY equal to 1/3.

Another confusion people often have with this is that they tend to think of repeating decimals as "growing." In other words, they think that since we can never write an infinite number of 3's, the number never "reaches" 1/3. .3 repeating is a number, it's value doesn't "grow" or "reach" anything, it has a fixed, exact value, which is 1/3.

This ties in with misconception that pi or any irrational number don't have fixed, exact values, which they do. Pi's exact value can be described as the circumference divided by the diameter of any circle, or pi. Just because I can't adequately write its exact value in decimal form doesn't mean it has no exact value.

Last edited:

- #18

- 1,013

- 70

- #19

- 95

- 0

No, itisn'tan approximation. 0.3333..., with the dots meaning "the 3's keep repeating" isexactlythe same as 1/3.

You got me... that was an error.

That's a strange statement. "1/3" and "0.3333..." are both exact. But it's especially peculiar since you just said that 0.3333... was a "decimal approximation".

Type 3.333333... into a calculator and tell me what you get.

But the statement "1/3= 0.3333..."iscorrect.

Please note that I did not include an ellipse at the end of that statement.

- #20

Mark44

Mentor

- 34,884

- 6,621

I dunno. WhatYou got me... that was an error.

Type 3.333333... into a calculator and tell me what you get.

Assuming that you really meant .333333 + (as many more digits as will fit in the calculator display>,

Or an ellipsis, either.Please note that I did not include an ellipse at the end of that statement.

- #21

HallsofIvy

Science Advisor

Homework Helper

- 41,833

- 963

Yes, I did. That was why I used the word "but".You got me... that was an error.

Type 3.333333... into a calculator and tell me what you get.

Please note that I did not include an ellipse at the end of that statement.

- #22

Hurkyl

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Gold Member

- 14,916

- 19

Done:Type 3.333333... into a calculator and tell me what you get.

http://www.wolframalpha.com/input/?i=Sum[3+*+10^-n,+{n,+0,+infinity}]

- #23

- 2

- 0

- #24

Mark44

Mentor

- 34,884

- 6,621

Each piece is NOT "almost ~0.3kg" How do you figure that?

- #25

Vanadium 50

Staff Emeritus

Science Advisor

Education Advisor

- 26,813

- 10,478

This statement is correct:

[tex]\frac{1}{3}\approx3.333333[/tex]

Ummm...No, it is not. The left side is smaller than one and the right side is larger.

Share: