Why can't 10 be divided by 3 perfectly?

[steintym]

Holy crap, this thread gave me a headache. Who needs a beer?

 

[November Rain]

If you have a 10 inch ruler and you cut it into 3 equal parts, what would each part equal? Whatever the answer is, that number would STOP. It has to stop, because it's a physical object which can be measured.

Now, take that answer and apply it to a calculator. If you divide 10 by 3, you get 3.333333333 for infinity. How is that possible? Why can something be divided perfectly in a physical way, but mathematically last for eternity?

If you have a 10 mile strip of road, you can split up that road into 3 separate roads. But on a calculator, these roads last forever.

they wouldn't be EQUAL parts



seriously....this is ******ed.

 

[November Rain]

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.

oh jesus, where did you all do school

colours are expressed as a designated wavelength of light

and time is designated as a for a radioactive half life of another entity.

and three is described as the third prime number (or second discounting one) and a multiple of one itself.

i'm utterly shocked at your abstract perception of life

 

[Sentinel X]

Why are people so condescending when other people ask questions like this? Is it to boost their ego or what? ...seriously, this is what makes people in society so afraid to ask questions and learn new things

Humans are sentient. They are self-aware and can contemplate their own existence. Computers can't do that yet. They just run through lines of code, moving 1's and 0's around. There's no independent thought. There's no ability to work outside the programming because computers can only run the programs as they are written.

It's very easy to anthropomorphize computers because we've programmed many of them to give us outputs in ways humans can understand. We've even built them the ability to talk and move like people. We've made them human friendly. But there's no thought there. Modern computers really aren't any different than the old punch card computers of 50 years ago. Just smaller and faster.

For the most part you are just reiterating what I said earlier. I think you and I just have a different view on intelligence (see previous post), so I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.I think I'm more of a Gardner (theory of multiple intelligences) kind of guy than you might be. For example, an autistic savant may excel in musical intelligence where as he may do really poorly in other facets of intelligence. I don't think that makes him stupid, I think it just makes him different and less well rounded than your average person

However, the last statement is just really not true at all. Modern computers are far ahead of punch card computers. Some of the things created from robotics are absolutely spectacular.

 

[wiegeabo]

Why are people so condescending when other people ask questions like this? Is it to boost their ego or what? ...seriously, this is what makes people in society so afraid to ask questions and learn new things

For the most part you are just reiterating what I said earlier. I think you and I just have a different view on intelligence (see previous post), so I guess we will just have to agree to disagree.I think I'm more of a Gardner (theory of multiple intelligences) kind of guy than you might be. For example, an autistic savant may excel in musical intelligence where as he may do really poorly in other facets of intelligence. I don't think that makes him stupid, I think it just makes him different and less well rounded than your average person

However, the last statement is just really not true at all. Modern computers are far ahead of punch card computers. Some of the things created from robotics are absolutely spectacular.

It looks spectacular, but it honestly still runs on the same principles as were developed for computers back in the early 20th century. We're actually still not far removed from Babbage's original designs of the 19th century.

I agree with the autistic example. He's not stupid, there is intelligence there, it just might be focused with laser sharp precision.

But with computers, there's no intelligence. There's data. And there's intelligently designed (no pun intended) programs that can manipulate the data. But there's no comprehension in a computer. There's no self-awareness. There's no consciousness, for lack of a better term.

I've seen interviews with AI specialist, and they've said if they could create a computer with the intelligence of a cockroach, they'd consider their life's work complete and successful. We're not at the level of androids left. We're still working with robots. They're the most mobile and expressive robots in history, but they're just robots.

 

[November Rain]

Why are people so condescending when other people ask questions like this? Is it to boost their ego or what? ...seriously, this is what makes people in society so afraid to ask questions and learn new things

...

The question does appear to be fairly basic and I suppose if people aren't in the know say they aren't, it's better than stating stuff that isn't true like 'no one knows what blue is'. it irks...

but regardless

sorry Rocketman, I love you really... don't do your own tax returns though

 

[Sentinel X]

It looks spectacular, but it honestly still runs on the same principles as were developed for computers back in the early 20th century. We're actually still not far removed from Babbage's original designs of the 19th century.

I'm sorry but how so? Of course like any computer it has to follow directions (set by a computer programmers in this case) but I don't see how this is even in the same ball park as the Babbage computers.

I agree with the autistic example. He's not stupid, there is intelligence there, it just might be focused with laser sharp precision.

But with computers, there's no intelligence. There's data. And there's intelligently designed (no pun intended) programs that can manipulate the data. But there's no comprehension in a computer. There's no self-awareness. There's no consciousness, for lack of a better term.

I've seen interviews with AI specialist, and they've said if they could create a computer with the intelligence of a cockroach, they'd consider their life's work complete and successful. We're not at the level of androids left. We're still working with robots. They're the most mobile and expressive robots in history, but they're just robots.

I understand what you are saying but what is consciousness in the first place? We follow a code too, albeit a genetic one. Sure, our genetic code is far more complex than a computer code, (we have creativity, emotions, logic,etc) but its code nonetheless and we just follow its directions.

 

[chaseter]

That's a good sign. That means it's growing and getting smarter.


Or it's a tumor.

 

[SpideyVille]

[YT]OaTO8_KNcuo[/YT]

 

[wiegeabo]

I'm sorry but how so? Of course like any computer it has to follow directions (set by a computer programmers in this case) but I don't see how this is even in the same ball park as the Babbage computers.

Because a lot of the first computers from the 20th century were based on, or evolved from, ideas Babbage put into his designs. At most, our computers are only two generations above Babbage's. And one could argue that we're only one generation removed since modern computers really only differ from the old computers in the technology under the hood, not in how they operate.

I understand what you are saying but what is consciousness in the first place? We follow a code too, albeit a genetic one. Sure, our genetic code is far more complex than a computer code, (we have creativity, emotions, logic,etc) but its code nonetheless and we just follow its directions.

With humans, we either have the ability to think beyond our code, or our code is complex enough to allow conscious thought.

Computers aren't like that. There is literally nothing going on except running code and moving a set of binary numbers from one location to another, or adding two binary numbers together.

 

[Scarlet spidey]

Do your own homework.

I've been on Reddit too long.. I tried to upvote this, but I couldn't find the arrows.

 

[Sentinel X]

Because a lot of the first computers from the 20th century were based on, or evolved from, ideas Babbage put into his designs. At most, our computers are only two generations above Babbage's. And one could argue that we're only one generation removed since modern computers really only differ from the old computers in the technology under the hood, not in how they operate.

Well of course they would evolve from babbage's orginal designs, that is a given. However what I'm asking is how a computer like Asimo isn't "much different" from an archaic babbage computer? Clearly, all computers have to operate from a code (this will never change); Other than this small similarity I don't see how the two can even be lumped into the same category. Computers have evolved significantly since then. Heck, the babbage computers didn't even run on electricity, they were mechanical and thus more like engines if anything.

With humans, we either have the ability to think beyond our code, or our code is complex enough to allow conscious thought.

Computers aren't like that. There is literally nothing going on except running code and moving a set of binary numbers from one location to another, or adding two binary numbers together.

I would say its the latter. I think it is literally impossible to think beyond your code (thats like trying to see colors beyond the visible light region in the em spectrum). So, wouldn't that make us just biological computers? Of course, really really complex biological computers but computers nonetheless, no?

 

[Calvin]

My guess would be the next real step would be finally figuring out how the different electric and biological impulses in our brains create thought, figuring out how to recreate that, and then combining that with some really advanced computer tech and AI, and we'll finally have a "computer" with the abilities of both humans and computers. And then the world will end.

 

[Christian89]

***

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

My head just exploded.

 

[DA_Champion]

If you have a 10 inch ruler and you cut it into 3 equal parts, what would each part equal? Whatever the answer is, that number would STOP. It has to stop, because it's a physical object which can be measured.

Now, take that answer and apply it to a calculator. If you divide 10 by 3, you get 3.333333333 for infinity. How is that possible? Why can something be divided perfectly in a physical way, but mathematically last for eternity?

If you have a 10 mile strip of road, you can split up that road into 3 separate roads. But on a calculator, these roads last forever.

3.3333333 ... is a perfectly legitimate number. It is as good a number as 3.50 or 1.20. It's an element of the real number line. That is all.

 

[DA_Champion]

Simple: it's impossible to cut a 10-inch ruler in 3 equal parts. One part will be microscopically (undetectably) larger than the other two.

Incorrect. That is totally irrelevant to the question at hand.

 

[Persistence]

agreed...Calvin explained it right...its legit (and arbitrary) distance expressed by a rational number that just doesn't divide easily in base 10 expression

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Nerd fight!!!!

 

[Doctor Evo]

People-familiar-with-fourth-grade-math fight!

Fixed that for you.

 

[JJJ's Ulcer]

Yeah I don't see how this is a nerd fight. It's certainly less nerdy than the "Raimi Spider-Man/ reboot Spider-Man" fights. Now that... that is nerdy.

 

[redmarvel]

Because 7 of 9 will assimilate the remainder.

 

[Nell2ThaIzzay]

Fixed that for you.

Yeah I don't see how this is a nerd fight. It's certainly less nerdy than the "Raimi Spider-Man/ reboot Spider-Man" fights. Now that... that is nerdy.

See below \/

Somebody is going to come in here and just scream "nerd fight!" at some point.

 

[Thundercrack85]

I wonder, are most people bad at math?

This is a forum full of nerds, and still people seem bad at it.

 

[Mike_D202]

I'm not good at math..BUT...I am good at sex. Just ask 3 out of the 10 girls i've dated.