No, they don’t write 25%. In base 9, 1/4 is an infinite decimal. Why would they say 25%?
They wouldn’t, they would say their equivalent to 25%. They still have a concept of 1 divided by 4, it’s just that they express it differently because their system is base 9, not base 10.
Like I said, they agree that they each have 1 of 4 pieces. They write that differently, depending on the base.
When all is said and done, they agree with a base ten person that they have 1 of 4 apples.
Just because they say 1 of 4 apples is a different percentage in their base, doesn’t mean they are saying it’s different.
1.0 in base 9 means .999… in base 10
.3 in base 9 is .333… in base 10
3 x .3 in base 9 is 1.0, not .9.
Motor daddy,
I’m going to take you back to my theorem because this is exactly what flannel is talking about.
You only get repeating decimals in 1 minus base and all of its even divisors.
So for 10, one minus base is 9.
The even divisors are 9,6,3.
There’s an exception though.
Base minus the lowest divisor of one minus base.
That would be 10 minus 3, which is 7.
But earlier you said
“In both bases, 3 parts DO NOT add up to 1.0.”
Now you’re saying “3 x .3 in base 9 is 1.0”
Those seem like direct contradictions
In base 10, 10 parts equal 1.0
In base 9, 9 parts equal 1.0
If you have 3 parts of 3 of 9 parts you have 9 of 9 parts
But in base 10, .333… is equal to .3 in base 9. 3 of each of those only equates to 99.999…% of 1.0.
No. That’s not the way it works dude.
And stop trying to confuse the issue with decimal points.
Just use the number three.
In base 9.
In base 9, three is an even number. It divides perfectly.
Right, so you’re disagreeing with what you said:
“In both bases, 3 parts DO NOT add up to 1.0.”
In base 9, 3 parts clearly do add up to 1.0
I am giving a base 10 percentage to a base 9 problem.
In base 10, 1 divided by 9 = .111… or 11.111…%
That is 1.0 cut into 9 pieces, and giving a base 10 percent to a base 9 problem.
So in base 9, “.3” has a base 10 percentage of 33.333…%
There is no “.9” in base 9, so .3 x 3 is not .9, it is 1.0
But stated in base 10 terms, the base 9 “.3 x 3” means the base 10 99.999…%, not 1.0 that it should, in BOTH bases.
I know you’re making this argument dude.
By your own argument, base 10 doesn’t exist either.
The argument has lost coherence at this point. “In base 10 it doesn’t add up to 1 in both bases”. That’s what it sounds like the claim is now.
In both bases, 1.0 is the same, it is 1 WHOLE, or 100%
A .1 in base 9 means 1 of 9 pieces, or 11.111…% of the whole
.3 means 33.333…% of the whole
.8 means 88.888…% of the whole
There is no .9 in base 9 to represent 9 pieces. 1.0 was divided into 9 pieces
If 8 pieces in base 9 means .8 means 88.888…% then 9 pieces means 99.999…%
Hence it is not 100%, it is 99.999…% of 1.0 in base 9.
This line of reasoning isn’t going to cut it for anybody else. You can’t just keep relying on the base 10 decimal representation of the value to prove something in base 9.
If you could, then you could do the reverse, and prove that because 1/4 is an infinite decimal in base 9, it must not add up to 1 in any base as well.
You agreed that all bases are equally valid earlier in the thread. If they are equally valid, and you do not have a biased reliance on base 10 for your points, then you have to apply the same logic to 1/4.
But you’re not doing that.
What is the math in base 9 for .3 times 3 ???
In base 9, .3 * 3 is 1.
So you are saying 1 divided into 3 parts is how many percent for each piece?
I’ve already told you this dude.
You’re not talking about counting any more.
You’re talking about linguistic tokens.
I saw your argument dude.
Technically base 10 is 0,1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9
No ten.
That’s called a fucking placeholder dude.
That’s what makes a base.
We currently use zero as our base placeholder.
You’re confusing so many things at this point.
The word “percent” seems to be another way for you to bring base 10 back into into. The term “percent” itself is as ambiguous as the word “ten” when talking about other bases. Relying on base 10 representations like “percent” is literally the whole problem: you can only show the problem in base 10, and when you try to show the problem exists in other bases, you seem to only be able to do that by converting to base 10 first.
So in your base 9 world there is no percentage? So 1 apple of 4 apples has no percentage?
You keep forgetting my theorem. I’ve posted it twice in this thread.
I’ll tell you though. 3 in base nine is equally divisible.
For a person raised in base 9, the symbol “100” refers to the quantity that you would call 81. So something like “3%” to such a person would mean, to you, the base 10 value of 3/81
You can’t throw in the % symbol into this conversation without disambiguating it first.