Converting Equations to Binary & Irrational Numbers

Click For Summary

Discussion Overview

The discussion revolves around the conversion of equations and numbers into binary notation, particularly focusing on the nature of irrational numbers across different numeral systems. Participants explore the implications of representing numbers in various bases and the terminology used in these contexts.

Discussion Character

  • Exploratory
  • Technical explanation
  • Conceptual clarification
  • Debate/contested
  • Meta-discussion

Main Points Raised

  • One participant questions whether an equation can be converted to binary notation and whether irrational numbers retain their irrationality in any numeral format.
  • Another participant discusses the conversion of 0.999 to 1 and suggests that the representation of numbers in different bases does not change their inherent properties, such as being rational or irrational.
  • It is noted that converting an irrational number like √2 to another base will not yield a decimal form, as "decimal" is specific to base 10.
  • A participant comments on the difficulty of terminology when discussing number systems, particularly the preference of some educators to avoid the term "decimal" in favor of "non-integers" or "representations of decimals" in other bases.
  • There is a reflection on the awkwardness of language in mathematical discussions, with a participant expressing concern about being perceived as harsh in their comments.
  • Another participant expresses agreement with the discomfort surrounding the term "decimal fraction," even in base 10, and acknowledges that their previous remarks may have been misinterpreted.

Areas of Agreement / Disagreement

Participants express varying opinions on the terminology used in number systems and the implications of representing irrational numbers in different bases. There is no clear consensus on the best terminology or the nuances of these representations.

Contextual Notes

Participants highlight the limitations of language in mathematics and the potential for confusion when discussing number representations across different bases. The discussion reflects ongoing uncertainties regarding terminology and the properties of numbers in various numeral systems.

Who May Find This Useful

This discussion may be of interest to educators, students in computer science and mathematics, and those exploring the philosophical implications of number representation in different numeral systems.

jobyts
Messages
226
Reaction score
60
... can we convert this equation to binary notation?

Also another one, would an irrational number be irrational in any number format?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
[tex]0.999 = 1[/tex]

Use the standard algorithms to convert [tex]0.\overline{000}[/tex] to decimal form (do the same for [tex]1[/tex], but that isn't as exciting). The results will look different, but if two symbols represent the same quantity in one number system, the corresponding symbols represent the same quantity in any number system.

If you convert (say) [tex]\sqrt 2[/tex] to another base, you won't get a decimal form, since decimal refers to base 10 alone. You will get a representation, in that other base, of a number that we refer to as irrational in base 10.
 
In binary it would be [itex]0.\overline{1111}= 1[/itex] and, yes, it is true.

statdad, while incorrect, there just isn't any good term to replace "decimal fraction" in another base so I would cut jobytx some slack on that.

jobytx, the distinction between "rational" and "irrational" is a property of numbers not numerals and has nothing to do with whether it is represented in base 2 or base 10 or even Roman numerals (although I confess I don't know how one would represent a non-integer in Roman numerals!).
 
HallsofIvy;
I agree (I think, unless you are saying my comment is incorrect) with you - language is awkward with this stuff. Here's my reason for the comment.
I'm currently teaching an applied course for folk majoring in computer areas (programming, mostly) and we discuss number systems for our CIS colleagues. They have (for their own reasons) specifically asked us not to refer to "decimal" when using other number systems, whatever the base: they prefer we refer to them as "non-integers", or "representations of decimals".
Think too long and hard like that and it seeps outside the classroom.

If it seems I was being harsh to the OP, I do apologize - that was not my intent.
 
statdad said:
HallsofIvy;
I agree (I think, unless you are saying my comment is incorrect) with you
Would I dare say that you are incorrect?

- language is awkward with this stuff. Here's my reason for the comment.
I'm currently teaching an applied course for folk majoring in computer areas (programming, mostly) and we discuss number systems for our CIS colleagues. They have (for their own reasons) specifically asked us not to refer to "decimal" when using other number systems, whatever the base: they prefer we refer to them as "non-integers", or "representations of decimals".
Think too long and hard like that and it seeps outside the classroom.

If it seems I was being harsh to the OP, I do apologize - that was not my intent.
 
It's happened many, many, times in my graduate career and in my careers since finishing my degrees. So, if my comment(s) above were in error, let me know. :D

I expect no lower level of honesty from you.
 
I agree with you completely. In fact, I dislike the term "decimal fraction" even when working in base 10.

Also, I just noticed that jobyts did not use the term "decimal" himself so you were just giving additional information, not criticizing, and my remark was off base!
 

Similar threads

  • · Replies 28 ·
Replies
28
Views
3K
  • · Replies 9 ·
Replies
9
Views
2K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
3K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 27 ·
Replies
27
Views
3K
  • · Replies 2 ·
Replies
2
Views
2K
  • · Replies 4 ·
Replies
4
Views
2K
  • · Replies 7 ·
Replies
7
Views
3K
  • · Replies 19 ·
Replies
19
Views
4K
Replies
4
Views
3K