This topic is meant to just be for me and motor. I will endeavour to ignore anybody else’s post, and I ask that you do the same Motor. I may delete outside people’s posts as well, to keep the thread clean and focused.
This is about the long lasting topic of 1 being divisible by 3. It is motors belief that you can’t evenly divide 1 into 3 pieces -the scope and parameters of this claim will be clarified later.
This conversation is based on an explicit agreement of good faith conversation, without insults or belligerence. Good faith meaning a consistent desire to be sincere, fair, open and honest in all aspects of the conversation. I won’t mislead you about my beliefs or arguments, and I will genuinely attempt to understand your beliefs and arguments. And I expect the same from you.
If there’s a breach of the good faith or cordial tone from me, I expect you to call me out on it - momentary lapses can hopefully be quickly corrected. I will endeavour to call you out on the same, and if the good faith and cordial tone is lost the thread will probably just be locked.
So, let’s start with your last question:
Do you agree that 12 eggs divided into 3 parts means each part is 4 eggs, and that 3 parts x 4 eggs = 12 eggs???
So when you say 12 eggs divided into 3 equal parts, each part is 4 eggs or 400% of the unit egg.
In other words, what you are doing is dividing 12 by 3 and arriving at an answer of 4, which means each of the 3 parts are 4.0, or 400%. 400% x 3 = 1200%. Agreed?
In very simple terms, using quantities and percent and the unit “dozen” explain in simple terms such as the way I did with dividing 12 eggs above, how you would do that?
How many dozen is each of the 3 parts? How many percent is each of the 3 parts?
I think for the sake of this conversation I’ll agree with the general notion that infinite decimals are nonsensical, if that suits you. I don’t generally agree with that, but I don’t think that that particular point matters very much so I’m happy to drop that and take the position with you that infinite decimals are a no no
Whoops, you forgot to answer my questions directly. “1/3” is not a number, it is a fraction. I asked “HOW MANY” which is a NUMBER, not a fraction. Again, 100/3 is a fraction, but I asked for “how many” which is a NUMBER, not a fraction.
So I’ll repeat the question for you:
How many dozen is each of the 3 parts?
How many percent is each of the 3 parts?
I don’t think I agree that “fractions aren’t numbers”, but nonetheless I’ll humour you
It seems that you only want to see it in radix point notation. Since we’re agreeing that infinite decimals are nonsensical, then this particular value isn’t purely representable in base 10 radix notation. It can only be approximated, as 0.33333… or 33.333…%
However, this very same value can be represented without infinite numbers after the radix in other bases. For example, as 0.2 in base 6.
I didn’t actually know that we were talking ABOUT base 10. I did assume that we were using base 10, but I think it’s important to distinguish between “using base 10” and “talking about base 10”.
Are we talking about base 10? Or are we merely using base 10?
I am talking in the default American base, which is 10. Unless otherwise noted all my conversation will be in base 10.
What did you think I meant when I said “12 eggs”, did you think I was referring to base 6? Why didn’t you start talking about base 6 when I was talking about 12 eggs?"
So anyway, you agree that 1.0 Dozen can’t be equally divided into 3 equal parts in base 10, right?
I didn’t bring up other bases then because other bases didn’t serve any purpose at that point in the conversation. The meaning of integer numbers is always unambiguous. The meaning of radix point numbers, however, especially ones that are infinitely long ARE ambiguous in the context of this conversation, so disambiguating in that context is useful.
It’s very important that we distinguish between “using base 10” and “talking about base 10”. We’ve been using English this whole time, but we have not been talking ABOUT English.
The scope of the claim is very important. If you say 1/3 is impossible, it’s very important to clarify what that is a claim about. Is that a claim about base 10? As in, you don’t believe that 1/3 is impossible in the real world, it’s just impossible using base 10 numbers?
I would like to get this point clarified first a foremost.
It’s not a word game. It’s an integral point. “Word game much” doesn’t feel like a good faith thing to say. I want to continue this conversation, but not when relevant points are dismissed as word games. Whether you claim is a claim about reality, or about base 10, is entirely relevant. They are two very different positions.