What is the Method for Calculating Decimal Approximations of Fractions?

  • Thread starter Thread starter OrbitalPower
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
The discussion centers on the method for calculating decimal approximations of fractions, specifically the fraction 23/24, which approximates to 0.95833+. Participants clarify the notation used, particularly the "+" sign, indicating that the values are slightly greater than the stated numbers due to repeating decimals. The approximation of 0.9583 is noted to be 0.00003+ less than the true value, while 0.9584 is 0.00006+ greater, emphasizing that the "+" signifies additional decimal precision. The conversation concludes that the notation accurately reflects the closeness of these approximations to the true value. Understanding this notation is crucial for accurate decimal approximation calculations.
OrbitalPower
I was reading about decimal approximations in one of my math books and I like his explanation of why 5 and over we round up and so on (as it's closer to rounding down). I even understood the explanation of how to calculate what the error could be given a series of decimal numbers that have been approximated.

However, this paragraph confused me:

"...Thus, by the method of article 34, 23/24 = .95833+. Expressed to four decimal places the real value of this fraction lies between .9583 and .9584; .9583 is .00003+ less than the true value, and .9584 is .00006+ greater. Therefore, .9583 is nearer the correct value and is said to be correct to four decimal places. Similarly, .958 is correct to three places and .96 to two."

I understand .95833 - .00003 = .9583. But shouldn't .9584 be .00007+ greater than .95833?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
I am not sure I understand his use of the + in this notation. Let me guess.

.9584 - .958333... = .0000666...

I think .00006+ discribes this number better then .00007+ clearly it is LESS then .00007 and greater then .00006.
 
OrbitalPower said:
I was reading about decimal approximations in one of my math books and I like his explanation of why 5 and over we round up and so on (as it's closer to rounding down). I even understood the explanation of how to calculate what the error could be given a series of decimal numbers that have been approximated.

However, this paragraph confused me:

"...Thus, by the method of article 34, 23/24 = .95833+. Expressed to four decimal places the real value of this fraction lies between .9583 and .9584; .9583 is .00003+ less than the true value, and .9584 is .00006+ greater. Therefore, .9583 is nearer the correct value and is said to be correct to four decimal places. Similarly, .958 is correct to three places and .96 to two."

I understand .95833 - .00003 = .9583. But shouldn't .9584 be .00007+ greater than .95833?
If you had 0.95833 exactly then 0.9584 would be exactly 0.00007 greater. But 23/24= 0.95833333... where the "3" keeps repeating. The "+" in 0.00006+" means "0.00006 plus more terms after that (in this case the "3333..."). The difference is a little less than 0.00007, again because of that continuing "3333...".
 
Thanks guys. There are usually few errors in his books so I didn't think it would be an error. The explanation above makes sense, the plus sign indicates that more figures are to be added, so .9583 is .00003+ less than the true value, which is the closest approximation at that level, and likewise for the other number, the .00006+, which is closer than .00007 because of the addition of the plus sign.
 
Seemingly by some mathematical coincidence, a hexagon of sides 2,2,7,7, 11, and 11 can be inscribed in a circle of radius 7. The other day I saw a math problem on line, which they said came from a Polish Olympiad, where you compute the length x of the 3rd side which is the same as the radius, so that the sides of length 2,x, and 11 are inscribed on the arc of a semi-circle. The law of cosines applied twice gives the answer for x of exactly 7, but the arithmetic is so complex that the...
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...
Fermat's Last Theorem has long been one of the most famous mathematical problems, and is now one of the most famous theorems. It simply states that the equation $$ a^n+b^n=c^n $$ has no solutions with positive integers if ##n>2.## It was named after Pierre de Fermat (1607-1665). The problem itself stems from the book Arithmetica by Diophantus of Alexandria. It gained popularity because Fermat noted in his copy "Cubum autem in duos cubos, aut quadratoquadratum in duos quadratoquadratos, et...
Back
Top