Why aren't repeating decimals (such as 1/3) infinitely large?

  • B
  • Thread starter FreeForAll
  • Start date
In summary, the conversation revolves around the fraction 1/3 and how it can be written as 0.3333... or 0.333... or any other number that is smaller than 1. Adding 1/2 to a number will cause it to grow larger and larger, but if you add 1/4, 1/8, or 1/16 to the number, it will never get to 1.333.
  • #1
FreeForAll
24
1
I had a slightly embarrassing conversation with a 10 year old:

Me: Did you know the fraction 1/3 can also be written as 0.3333...
Her: When does it end?
Me: Never, keeps going to infinity.
Her: Then if every 3 makes the number larger, and there are infinite 3s, does that mean it keeps getting bigger until infinity?
Me: *blank stare*

How would you explain this to a 10 year old?
 
Mathematics news on Phys.org
  • #2
Well, convergence of infinite series is probably a bit much to expect a 10 year old to understand ;) Have you tried saying "try it yourself, and let me know when you get to four" ?
 
  • Like
Likes russ_watters, FreeForAll and PeroK
  • #3
Try the old - is it Zeno's Paradox? If you are going from A to B, first go halfway there, then half the remaining distance, and so on. Because each step is half the remaining distance, you never quite get to B (except at infinity). I think that may be easier to visualise.
 
  • Like
Likes m4r35n357, FreeForAll and CWatters
  • #4
FreeForAll said:
Her: Then if every 3 makes the number larger, and there are infinite 3s, does that mean it keeps getting bigger until infinity?
##0.\bar{3}=0.333\ldots ## is just a representation of ##\frac{1}{3}## which is finite. It only shows, that ##0.333\ldots ## isn't optimal. For instance, we could chose a basis ##3## instead of ##10##. Then it becomes ##\frac{1}{3}=_3 \,0.1##. There is no need to use decimal numbers (basis ##10##). Our computers use powers of ##2## as basis units, the Babylonians used ##60##. In the end it's probably the number of our fingers which determined the ##10##, and that it is optimal for payments, as you only need coins ##1,2,5## to get all numbers. So you see, ##10## is somewhat deliberately chosen, and some quotients cannot be written finitely in this basis. Another basis - another representation. However, with the better notation ##\frac{1}{3}## everything is fine.
 
  • Like
Likes phinds, m4r35n357 and FreeForAll
  • #5
Because each time you add a three, you also dilute it by another 10x, so the new 3's get weaker and weaker the farther you go. Only by adding together the infinite
series of terms after the decimal point, does it actually get to exactly 1/3. The value is always slightly under 1/3 until you do the infinite summation. Have the child image a drop of food coloring in a glass, a bowl, a bathtub, a pond, a lake, an ocean. As you proceed, the change in color you've made becomes insignificant.
 
  • #6
Another option is to take 0.333333333333... and re-write this as 0.33333 + 0.0000033333333... , they will agree that it is the same. Now ask if
0.000004 is always bigger than 0.00000333333333333... no matter how many 3's you include. If the answer is yes, the infinite sum cannot get
over 0.333334 Push this idea to the N'th decimal point instead of the 6th, they will see the infinite sum must converge to 1/3.
 
  • #7
As the power of "three" becomes weaker and weaker, the ability of the number getting larger will also be weaker and weaker, until it infinitely approaches##\frac{1}{3}##.
 
  • #8
FreeForAll said:
I had a slightly embarrassing conversation with a 10 year old:

Me: Did you know the fraction 1/3 can also be written as 0.3333...
Her: When does it end?
Me: Never, keeps going to infinity.
Her: Then if every 3 makes the number larger, and there are infinite 3s, does that mean it keeps getting bigger until infinity?
Me: *blank stare*

How would you explain this to a 10 year old?

"Nope. Depends how small the numbers you're adding: Keep adding 1/2 to a number, then you get 1, 1 1/2, 2, 2 1/2 and it gets bigger and bigger. Now try adding 1/2, then 1/3, then 1/4 and so on. Adding smaller and smaller numbers but that too will continue growing. However, if the numbers you add continue to be a lot smaller, say, adding 1/2 then 1/4, then 1/8, then 1/16, well that won't grow very big, but will get closer and closer to one and never get bigger even if you add an infinite number of them: If you add the right kind of smaller and smaller numbers to a number, even an infinite number of them, the number will only grow so big and that is what happens when you keep adding three's to 0.333... It only gets so big, 1/3 and never bigger. "
 

FAQ: Why aren't repeating decimals (such as 1/3) infinitely large?

1. Why do repeating decimals eventually stop repeating?

Repeating decimals, also known as recurring decimals, occur when a number cannot be expressed exactly as a fraction. This is because the decimal representation of the number has a pattern that repeats indefinitely. However, when we convert these decimals into fractions, we are able to simplify them and eliminate the repeating pattern, resulting in a finite number.

2. How do we convert a repeating decimal into a fraction?

To convert a repeating decimal into a fraction, we use a mathematical technique called the method of infinite geometric series. This involves taking the non-repeating part of the decimal and dividing it by a number that has the same number of digits as the repeating pattern. For example, if the repeating pattern is 3, we would divide the non-repeating part by 3. This results in a fraction that is equivalent to the repeating decimal.

3. Why are repeating decimals considered irrational numbers?

Repeating decimals are considered irrational numbers because they cannot be expressed as a ratio of two integers. This means that they cannot be written in the form of a fraction, where the numerator and denominator are both whole numbers. Therefore, they are considered irrational, just like other numbers such as pi and the square root of 2.

4. Can we have a repeating decimal with more than one repeating pattern?

Yes, it is possible to have a repeating decimal with more than one repeating pattern. These are known as mixed repeating decimals and occur when there is a repeating pattern after the decimal point and another one in the digits before the decimal point. For example, 0.16161616... is a mixed repeating decimal with two repeating patterns.

5. How do we know that a repeating decimal is a true representation of the original number?

To determine if a repeating decimal is a true representation of the original number, we can use a mathematical proof called the proof by contradiction. This involves assuming that the repeating decimal is not equal to the original number and then showing that this leads to a contradiction. This proof confirms that the repeating decimal is indeed equivalent to the original number.

Similar threads

Back
Top