Why can't 10 be divided by 3 perfectly?

[Llama_Shepherd]

Change the + to a 4.

 

[Erzengel]

Pfftt....white people.

 

[Hound55]

Hey! This is how we make up for being incapable of dancing without looking ridiculous!

 

[Calvin]

Someone texted me earlier and said "My buddy said that 5+5+5=550 if you just make a slight change, what is it?"

I had no clue.

The slight change is to stop being his friend.

 

[Hound55]

Wrongo, my friend. First of all, an irrational number is still a real number, so it's beside the point. Second, your fact is incorrect to begin with, as an irrational number is a real number that cannot be expressed as a fraction using integers (with the denominator being a non-zero integer). 10/3 is not an irrational number. It is real and rational.

I can only assume he meant an "improper fraction" rather than an "irrational number".

 

[Erzengel]

Someone texted me earlier and said "My buddy said that 5+5+5=550 if you just make a slight change, what is it?"

I had no clue.

545+5=550

Is it that simple?

 

[Rocketman]

So did we reach a conclusion that we all agree on, or is this still being debated? Because I don't think there's an actual answer to this question.

Basically, numbers don't really exist in the physical world. If I said to you "Describe 3," you can't, because "3" doesn't exist. There can be 3 apples, but you're only using apples, and there are in fact, 3 of them. But you can't just have "3." The apples are physical, but the number of them isn't.

It's the same with colors and time. There is no physical proof of an hour existing, just like it would be nearly impossible for someone to "describe blue." You can't just say, "Blue is a color, and it is _____." You can say "The sky is blue," but you can't say "Blue is the ____."

Really, nothing exists in a nerdy sort of way. For example, scientists discovered that if you look close enough at an atom, the atom is made up of 99.9999 nothing. It's empty.

 

[Hound55]

Yes.

I've seen it done with matchsticks when I was in Primary school... They write the original 5+5+5=550 with matchsticks and have an extra vertical matchstick in one of the pluses. They then say "Move one to make it true" and you turn the second one onto the diagonal to turn it into a 4.

 

[wiegeabo]

It's the same with colors and time. There is no physical proof of an hour existing, just like it would be nearly impossible for someone to "describe blue." You can't just say, "Blue is a color, and it is _____." You can say "The sky is blue," but you can't say "Blue is the ____."

Really, nothing exists in a nerdy sort of way. For example, scientists discovered that if you look close enough at an atom, the atom is made up of 99.9999 nothing. It's empty.

Blue is a color. It's defined as a specific range of wavelengths of light. Sure we could have called it anything, but it is a real thing that we gave the name 'Blue'.

And technically, the sky isn't blue. It's every color but blue, because blue is the wavelength of light that is being reflected into our eyes. But that one is more of a semantics game

 

[wiegeabo]

A fraction is just a precise representation of a decimal, but not the actual number itself.

1/3 is actually .333333333333...(ad infinitum). But it's a lot easier and more precise to write 1/3. In fact, it's so precise, that you can actually multiply 1/3 by 3 and get 1, which would be impossible in decimal without writing out an infinite number of .3s' (which can't be done).

 

[Calvin]

So did we reach a conclusion that we all agree on, or is this still being debated? Because I don't think there's an actual answer to this question.

Basically, numbers don't really exist in the physical world. If I said to you "Describe 3," you can't, because "3" doesn't exist. There can be 3 apples, but you're only using apples, and there are in fact, 3 of them. But you can't just have "3." The apples are physical, but the number of them isn't.

It's the same with colors and time. There is no physical proof of an hour existing, just like it would be nearly impossible for someone to "describe blue." You can't just say, "Blue is a color, and it is _____." You can say "The sky is blue," but you can't say "Blue is the ____."

Really, nothing exists in a nerdy sort of way. For example, scientists discovered that if you look close enough at an atom, the atom is made up of 99.9999 nothing. It's empty.

I don't agree with that at all. Yeah, we came up with the word "three", but it represents something that actually exists, just like any word in our language. You can see "three" instances of apples sitting right in front of you. No matter what you call "three" you can sit there and count them, and it would literally be "three" (or whatever word you want to use to describe the number) instances of apple. That's completely different than the arbitrary units we use to measure time. Although, an hour isn't really that arbitrary, since we, for the most part, base our time units on things like earth's orbit around the sun, and it's rate of rotation. Saying nothing exists is a really lazy and frankly useless way to answer that, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

 

[Hound55]

Or using a recurring symbol...

I still subscribe to the school of thought that says both fractions and decimals are equally numbers.

But then I still subscribe to the school of thought that says tht Pluto is a planet and f*** all that dwarf planet bulls***...

 

[Hound55]

I don't agree with that at all. Yeah, we came up with the word "three", but it represents something that actually exists, just like any word in our language. You can see "three" instances of apples sitting right in front of you. No matter what you call "three" you can sit there and count them, and it would literally be "three" (or whatever word you want to use to describe the number) instances of apple. That's completely different than the arbitrary units we use to measure time. Although, an hour isn't really that arbitrary, since we, for the most part, base our time units on things like earth's orbit around the sun, and it's rate of rotation. Saying nothing exists is a really lazy and frankly useless way to answer that, and you should be ashamed of yourself.

I agree.

Just because something only exists as a concept does not mean that something does not exist.

Yes. Numbers don't exist themselves in physical forms, but just because something doesn't have a physical form doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Numbers and mathematics are merely tools that we use to better understand the world around us.

 

[Calvin]

I agree.

Just because something only exists as a concept does not mean that something does not exist.

Yes. Numbers don't exist themselves in physical forms, but just because something doesn't have a physical form doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

Numbers and mathematics are merely tools that we use to better understand the world around us.

Exactly, his post is basically saying an apple doesn't exist because humans came up with the word "apple."

 

[Calvin]

Or using a recurring symbol...

I still subscribe to the school of thought that says both fractions and decimals are equally numbers.

Yep, although where is this school of thought that fractions aren't numbers (other than people in this thread being stupid)? Fractions are numbers. In fact, the definition of a rational number is pretty much a fraction.

 

[Hound55]

Exactly, his post is basically saying an apple doesn't exist because humans came up with the word "apple."

Well, no. The apples are a physical thing. Technically he's saying that an apple doesn't exist becase of the amount of space that exists between particles...

He's saying numbers don't exist because they aren't a physical thing... Which to me is an arrogant way of viewing things... Suggesting that conceptual things only exist if there is a human there to think it.

And again I take things back to my wheelhouse in philosophy... heh.

 

[Hound55]

Yep, although where is this school of thought that fractions aren't numbers (other than people in this thread being stupid)? Fractions are numbers. In fact, the definition of a rational number is pretty much a fraction.

I figured they must have changed things in math since I left school... or possibly a difference in how they teach it between Australia and America (less likely... math is math...)

It would make sense on a social level if they did with the greater influence of calculators and computers in classes. Not a change that I would like, but it would be a plausible change.

 

[Calvin]

I figured they must have changed things in math since I left school... or possibly a difference in how they teach it between Australia and America (less likely... math is math...)

It would make sense on a social level if they did with the greater influence of calculators and computers in classes. Not a change that I would like, but it would be a plausible change.

Maybe he's from Mississipi.

Numbers are just the devil's tricks!

 

[Sentinel X]

Wrongo, my friend. First of all, an irrational number is still a real number, so it's beside the point. Second, your fact is incorrect to begin with, as an irrational number is a real number that cannot be expressed as a fraction using integers (with the denominator being a non-zero integer). 10/3 is not an irrational number. It is real and rational.

I'm sorry, I am a bit rusty on my technical math terms, the last time I took a math class was calc II my freshman year of college. Anyways, the point is 10/3 is written as 1.3333 (and continues on to infinity) which is ultimately what the poster is asking about. Its really no different than how we use a symbol (or 22/7) to express the (theoretically) infinite number, pi. Why do these numbers continue to infinity? And where do we draw the line? Is 0.99999... equal to 1? If so then what is 1? Why does the quotient from two finite numbers give an infinitely large number? etc.

His question opens a whole can of worms that I suppose only a math major could give a really satisfying answer but its a very interesting question nonetheless...at least to me

 

[Mike_D202]

545+5=550

Is it that simple?

Spoiler

 

[Shemtov]

Or using a recurring symbol...

I still subscribe to the school of thought that says both fractions and decimals are equally numbers.

But then I still subscribe to the school of thought that says tht Pluto is a planet and f*** all that dwarf planet bulls***...

I subscribe to the to the school of thought that the definition of a planet is simply just an arbitrary means of classification created by humans. Astronomers could say the word planet applies to anything that orbits the sun -including moons and comets- are planets, if they wanted to.


But then I subscribe to the school of thought that says that if you discuss the nature of of the idea of 'a number' you're now in theology, not in mathematics.

 

[wiegeabo]

I subscribe to Netflix.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Man, **** math.

How is this for a mind ****...

Not only do numbers go on for infinity, but thanks to fractions, there is an infinite number of measurements between every integer as well...

I.E.: between #'s 1 and 2, there is an infinite number of measurements... 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 1.99, 1.999, 1.9999, 1.99999, and so on...

Math has an infinite number of infinities.

 

[wiegeabo]

How is this for a mind ****...

Not only do numbers go on for infinity, but thanks to fractions, there is an infinite number of measurements between every integer as well...

I.E.: between #'s 1 and 2, there is an infinite number of measurements... 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 1.4, 1.5, 1.6, 1.7, 1.8, 1.9, 1.99, 1.999, 1.9999, 1.99999, and so on...

Math has an infinite number of infinities.

My old CS chair worked or went to school with a guy who's math doctorate was about studying different levels of infinity.

I love math, and wish I had kept up with it after college. One thing I did learn is that most people's math intuition and beliefs how it works is usually wrong.

 

[Calvin]

My old CS chair worked or went to school with a guy who's math doctorate was about studying different levels of infinity.

I love math, and wish I had kept up with it after college. One thing I did learn is that most people's math intuition and beliefs how it works is usually wrong.

As evidenced by this thread apparently.