Convert any repeating decimal to a fraction?

[YesIam]

Okay everyone - Just look into a forth grade math book and the answer should jump out at you and hit you in the forehead. To quell any thoughts on why I should forget this and had to buy the book again, it is simple...It had such a simple answer and I sometimes forget simple thing-at least that is my only excuse for now. There is only so much room in the ole memory bank. But alas, I shan't ever forget it again after this merry go round.
Tiny-tim...14,372 post, my gosh, with this and sleeping, do you have time for a day job?...sorry.

 

[YesIam]

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. ​

Okay Tiny-tim...If you are saying that I should have said 'more' rather than 'other', I respectively disagree. I believe that I gave a proper statement. Since it looks like you may be living in the UK, do you recall what Winston Churchill replied with after someone criticized a statement in one of his books for sentence structure -the same goes for me. And can you imagine the time it would take me to define 'domain' or 'number' for him and get it right? I see no reason to entertain such nonsense.

 

[YesIam]

Tiny-tim...they are trying to help me!...give me a break. Do you really, really think that they are trying to help me? It is 'fourth' grade, I know.

 

[tiny-tim]

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.

Okay Tiny-tim...If you are saying that I should have said 'more' rather than 'other', I respectively disagree.

Nobody is saying that …

your inaccuracy was in the use of the mathematical term "numbers", not in the use of English.

And can you imagine the time it would take me to define 'domain' or 'number' for him and get it right?

I can imagine! ​

 

[JaredJames]

YesIam, in this forum people help each other.

So, either:
a) present a valid, correct question without missing information.
b) help other forum members answer your question (whether by giving clues or otherwise).
c) give the solution.

Don't keep posting a load of rubbish about "how simple it is" and how "it should be obvious". Half of your posts are full of non-sense content which simply tries to attack / degrade the quality of other peoples posts here.

From your own words, you didn't work it out. So why you should demand this of others is beyond me. Get off your high horse and get into the spirit of PF.

 

[Jimmy Snyder]

Does the line through YesIam's name mean that he is banned? This is unfortunate since I was hoping he would give the answer or at least another clue.

char.limit gave the correct answer to the question as it was posed along with a proof. It is aggravating in the extreme for him to come back with "people ... really think that it has to be some kind of proof because they have read it somewhere". The proof is a good one and no criticism of char.limit will rub off on the proof.

While not a solution to the question as posed, I have generalized the concept of number to get one kind of solution, and the concept of addition and multiplication to get another. It is aggravating in the extreme to have him come back with "no one on these forums really wants to try to solve anything more complicated than THEY can solve".

OK, so he burns me up. But I still want to know his answer. I have one more generalization. When he says a number added to itself, he means something like 3 + 3 + 3 = 3 x 3. This is a pedantic and uninteresting interpretation of his words, but as I said, char.limit has already solved the problem as it was posed.

 

[JaredJames]

Does the line through YesIam's name mean that he is banned?

Yes

Personally, after spending a while going over it, I don't think there is an answer to his question. I say this because I believe he mis-stated the question (whether deliberately or because he doesn't understand).

If there is an answer, I bet the actual question is rather different to what we've seen.

 

[davee123]

... So... he's gone now? All because of this thread? Some people just aren't meant to live on The Internet, I guess.

I'm sad to hear that he seemed to claim that any 4th grader would know the numbers and recognize them as numbers-- That would certainly imply that other such numbers would be discrete values in the subset of the Reals. And if so, then the existence of such a number can be disproved by the logic in the original thread.

I was hoping for something clever, but I suspect if he WERE correct, it's only insofar as a different interpretation of the wording. IE, we were all looking for "x*x = x+x", and really, the wording allowed for some other meaning (I don't see how offhand). I'm still rather hoping that somehow we can learn what the solution was that he had in mind, but at this point I suppose we'll just have to assume he was wrong. Oh well.

DaveE