Is Dividing 1 by 3 an Invalid Problem?
- Context: High School
- Thread starter Drakkith
- Start date
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Ask a follow-up in this thread, or start your own.
60 replies · 38K views
Mathematics news on Phys.org
tedima
- 12
- 0
Drakkith said:Tedima, there is no end to an infinitely long number.
The number 0.999... REPRESENTS a value that is equal to the number 1.
0.9999 is smaller than 1 if i put 99p into my bank account it wouldn't show as £1 on the machine
tedima
- 12
- 0
Mark44 said:Where exactly is the end of an infinite number of 0's?
There is no end, 1 can not actually be divided by 3 in theory. Infinity is not a number... but yet u divide 1 by 3 and you get an infinite amount of 3's.
Mentor
- 23,210
- 7,696
tedima said:0.9999 is smaller than 1 if i put 99p into my bank account it wouldn't show as £1 on the machine
We arent talking about 0.9999. We are talking about 0.9999...
The 3 decimals means that it repeats. Forever. If you started writing out the number, you would NEVER get finished.
Char. Limit
Gold Member
- 1,222
- 23
Why is it that every week or so we get someone who claims that 1 cannot be divided by 3?
1 can be divided by 3. The result is 1/3. It's not my fault that the decimal expansion for that is infinite repeating.
1 can be divided by 3. The result is 1/3. It's not my fault that the decimal expansion for that is infinite repeating.
tedima
- 12
- 0
Char. Limit said:Why is it that every week or so we get someone who claims that 1 cannot be divided by 3?
1 can be divided by 3. The result is 1/3. It's not my fault that the decimal expansion for that is infinite repeating.
i said in theory ;p
Mentor
- 23,210
- 7,696
tedima said:There is no end, 1 can not actually be divided by 3 in theory. Infinity is not a number... but yet u divide 1 by 3 and you get an infinite amount of 3's.
Sure you can. You don't get infinity as your answer, you get 0.333... with the 3's repeating forever. It is merely a consequence of our number system that we get a value with an infinite number of digits. For example, if we didn't use decimals at all, but always used fractions, we get an easy 1/3.
tedima
- 12
- 0
Drakkith said:We arent talking about 0.9999. We are talking about 0.9999...
The 3 decimals means that it repeats. Forever. If you started writing out the number, you would NEVER get finished.
I know what your saying. For 0.9999... to become 1 its got to be rounded up to 1. 0.9999... is the closest you can get to 1 but it isn't 1.
tedima
- 12
- 0
Drakkith said:Sure you can. You don't get infinity as your answer, you get 0.333... with the 3's repeating forever. It is merely a consequence of our number system that we get a value with an infinite number of digits. For example, if we didn't use decimals at all, but always used fractions, we get an easy 1/3.
good point.
tedima
- 12
- 0
Drakkith said:No, that is incorrect. 0.999... IS equal to 1. There is no rounding involved.
why is it equal to 1?
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 14,922
- 28
Because that's the way we defined the real number system, and the use of decimal numerals to represent real numbers.tedima said:why is it equal to 1?
If we defined things in a way that 0.999... and 1 denoted different numbers, the resulting number system wouldn't be very useful. You're free to try and study such number systems if you like -- but none of them will be the number system you learned about in school.
tedima
- 12
- 0
Hurkyl said:0.9999 only has a 9 in 4 decimal places. 0.9999... has a 9 in every decimal place.
put 0.9999... in ur bank account you will see 0.9999... on the machine
Last edited:
Char. Limit
Gold Member
- 1,222
- 23
tedima said:put 0.9999... in ur bank account ull se 0.9999... on the machine
Good luck "putting in" a number with an infinite amount of decimals into a bank account, an entity that usually doesn't go beyond the second decimal place.
Fact of the matter is, your "bank account" analogy doesn't apply here.
Also, it's spelled "your".
tedima
- 12
- 0
Hurkyl said:Because that's the way we defined the real number system, and the use of decimal numerals to represent real numbers.
If we defined things in a way that 0.999... and 1 denoted different numbers, the resulting number system wouldn't be very useful. You're free to try and study such number systems if you like -- but none of them will be the number system you learned about in school.
So it was chosen 0.999... was equal to 1.
tedima
- 12
- 0
Char. Limit said:Good luck "putting in" a number with an infinite amount of decimals into a bank account, an entity that usually doesn't go beyond the second decimal place.
Fact of the matter is, your "bank account" analogy doesn't apply here.
Also, it's spelled "your".
Lol thanks for the correction.
Staff Emeritus
Science Advisor
Gold Member
- 14,922
- 28
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.
tedima
- 12
- 0
Drakkith said:Irrelevant. Your example has nothing to do with what we are talking about.
Yeah it kinda moved off topic
tedima
- 12
- 0
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.
Mensanator
- 105
- 0
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.
Science Advisor
- 1,864
- 34
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.
Oriako
- 107
- 1
Just read this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/0.999...
Caramon
- 131
- 5
1 = 0.999...
Proof:
x = 0.999...
10x = 9.999...
10x - x = 9.999... - 0.999...
9x = 9
x = 1
:)
Proof:
x = 0.999...
10x = 9.999...
10x - x = 9.999... - 0.999...
9x = 9
x = 1
:)
Last edited:
Char. Limit
Gold Member
- 1,222
- 23
caramon said:1 = 0.999...
Proof:
x = 0.999...
10x = 9.999...
10x - x = 9.999... - 0.999...
9x = 9
x = 1
:)
fify
Science Advisor
Homework Helper
- 42,895
- 983
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.
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.
Similar threads
Largest prime dividing n² + 3 and (n+1)² + 3
- Math100
- · Replies 7 ·
- Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
- Replies
- 7
Graduate Find All Pairs (m,n) with mn-1 Dividing n^3+1
- eddybob123
- · Replies 6 ·
- General Math
- Replies
- 6
Graduate Why dividing zero by zero remains a problem
- mirelo
- · Replies 28 ·
- General Math
- Replies
- 28
Lingusitics Dividing 1 by three proves math is not a universal language
- squawbum
- · Replies 28 ·
- Art, History, and Linguistics
- Replies
- 28
High School Why Dividing 1 by 0 is Impossible?
- abc
- · Replies 7 ·
- General Math
- Replies
- 7
High School Is the statement |1/0| > 3 valid or invalid?
- uart
- · Replies 8 ·
- General Math
- Replies
- 8
Dividing Polynomials: How to Solve (4s^3+4s^2+72)/(s+3)
- camel-man
- · Replies 4 ·
- Precalculus Mathematics Homework Help
- Replies
- 4
Undergrad Merchant's 17 elephants: dividing them as 1/2, 1/3, and 1/9
- quark
- · Replies 15 ·
- General Math
- Replies
- 15
Undergrad Why are there only 3 quartiles when dividing data into 4 equal parts?
- 15123
- · Replies 7 ·
- Set Theory, Logic, Probability, Statistics
- Replies
- 7
High School Why is (2x^2)/(x^2+1) not dividing evenly?
- questionasker1
- · Replies 2 ·
- Calculus
- Replies
- 2