Is Dividing 1 by 3 an Invalid Problem?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Drakkith
  • Start date Start date
AI Thread Summary
Dividing 1 by 3 results in the repeating decimal 0.3333..., which is mathematically equivalent to 1/3. The operation does not "end" in the traditional sense because the decimal representation continues infinitely, but this does not invalidate the division. The confusion often arises from misunderstanding the nature of infinite series and how numbers are represented in different bases. While 0.3333... is an exact representation of 1/3, it highlights the limitations of the decimal system in expressing certain rational numbers. Ultimately, both 1/3 and 0.3333... are exact values, illustrating the nuances of numerical representation.
  • #51
tedima said:
So it was chosen 0.999... was equal to 1.

Effectively yes.

FYI, historically, we used the real numbers long before we ever had the idea to represent them with decimals. I'm not sure what the original idea for decimals was, but I would imagine the value of a decimal was originally meant to be an infinite sum. And the corresponding infinite sum that computes the value of 0.999... is a geometric series whose sum is 1.
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #52
tedima said:
So it was chosen 0.999... was equal to 1.

It was not chosen that specifically 0.999... should equal 1. It is simply the way our number system is set up that makes it that way.
 
  • #53
Drakkith said:
Irrelevant. Your example has nothing to do with what we are talking about.

Yeah it kinda moved off topic
 
  • #54
Hurkyl said:
Effectively yes.

FYI, historically, we used the real numbers long before we ever had the idea to represent them with decimals. I'm not sure what the original idea for decimals was, but I would imagine the value of a decimal was originally meant to be an infinite sum. And the corresponding infinite sum that computes the value of 0.999... is a geometric series whose sum is 1.

That explains everything. Thanks.
 
  • #55
Drakkith said:
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. It looks to me like it's an invalid problem since you could never get a final answer, but simply keeping adding threes to the end of it when you try to solve. Does this make any sense?

No, it makes no sense. You are confusing a number with its representation. Try using base 3.
 
  • #56
Drakkith said:
It was not chosen that specifically 0.999... should equal 1. It is simply the way our number system is set up that makes it that way.

We decided that 0.9999... = 1 when we decided that 0.999.. makes sense in the particular way it does today.
 
  • #58
1 = 0.999...

Proof:

x = 0.999...
10x = 9.999...
10x - x = 9.999... - 0.999...
9x = 9
x = 1

:)
 
Last edited:
  • #59
caramon said:
1 = 0.999...

Proof:

x = 0.999...
10x = 9.999...
10x - x = 9.999... - 0.999...
9x = 9
x = 1

:)

fify
 
  • #60
No, it wasn't "chosen". 0.9999... means .9+ .09+ .009+ .0009+ .00009+ ...= .9(1+ .01+ .001+ .0001+ .00001+ ...)

That last is a "geometric series" which is taught in any good "precalculus" or "algebra II" class.
a(1+ r+ r^2+ r^3+ r^4+ ...) has sum a/(1- r) as long as |r|< 1.

Here, a= 0.9 and r= .1. a/(1- r)= .9/(1- .1)= .9/.9= 1.
 
  • #61
HallsofIvy said:
No, it wasn't "chosen". 0.9999... means .9+ .09+ .009+ .0009+ .00009+ ...= .9(1+ .01+ .001+ .0001+ .00001+ ...)

That last is a "geometric series" which is taught in any good "precalculus" or "algebra II" class.
a(1+ r+ r^2+ r^3+ r^4+ ...) has sum a/(1- r) as long as |r|< 1.

Here, a= 0.9 and r= .1. a/(1- r)= .9/(1- .1)= .9/.9= 1.

The point is that it was chosen to mean exactly that, not that we chose to do our calculations correctly...
 
Back
Top