If you think you can divide a pie into 3 equal pieces, tell me what percent of the pie each piece is.
Don’t forget that 100% is 1.00, and that the three pieces need to add up to 1.00
What is 1 divided by 3 in base 9?
My bet is that he doesn’t understand your question and that he cannot see why his statement that a pie cannot be divided into three equal parts is difficult to interpret. So you shall be ignored.
My only hope is that all he’s saying is that 1/3 =/= 0.333~ in which case I completely agree with him. Still, lack of rapport leaves a bad taste in my mouth.
Sigh.
It is probably true that we can’t physically, perfectly divide a pie in three equal pieces. If we use atomic-scale measurements we are likely to find that on that level, one piece of pie will ever so slightly larger or smaller than another piece.
But this does not mean that it cannot be done in principle. Motor Daddy, however, quite apparently is suggesting that we can’t do this just because a perfect three-way division cannot be described in Base 10, which is true, but absurdly irrelevant. Seriously, is this nonsensical thread actually going to go on? 
If the volume of the pie is (90 cm^3) then dividing it into three equally sized pieces will result n each piece having a volume of (30 cm^3). That should be enough. But I guess you will nonetheless insist on a percentage. “What’s the percentage, goddamit!?” Well, it’s (\frac{100}{3}%). Can’t be represented simpler than that if we have to use base-10 expressions only. No base-10 expression on its own would do the job. That’s simply a limitation of base-10 system. It does not mean the cut pieces aren’t equal.
Don’t understate my position.
Even if you had some way of refuting my truth, there would still be the fact that it is impossible to cut a pie into 3 equal pieces. Equal what? Area? Volume? equal apples? Equal crust color? Equal energy value? Sugar? Thickness? and on and on!
It is impossible to rip a dollar into two equal pieces as it is a pie into 3 equal pieces!
On a side note, If close is good enough, then I have squared the circle! imgur.com/kWiCj9p
The fraction equals 33.333…% each piece, or 99.999…% total. So…it’s a FAIL!
You did not divide the pie into 3 pieces totaling 100%, that you started with!
I have refuted your “truth.” Base 10 is a descriptive convention.
Watch those goal posts fly! 
Now you are just changing the subject. Your first claim was about arithmetical equality. Now you are off in the clouds about physical properties. So effing what? Of course some slices may have more apples or flakier crusts or whatever the hell. This has NOTHING TO DO with your opening, refuted claim that you cannot have three equally sized slices just because such slices cannot be perfectly defined in Base 10.
OK, that’s it. I’m done. I wonder if anyone else is going to pursue this idiocy.
You’ve refuted NOTHING! Your pieces don’t amount to totaling what you started with, because you never finished the division. You gave a BS fraction that totaled 99.999…% for the 3 pieces. That is the whole point of this thread, Duh?
Oh, wait, let me guess…100% is equal to 99.999…% ??? LOL
Finish the division or admit defeat!
YOU changed the subject and brought that into the conversation! I said don’t understate my position!
It cannot be physically done even in principle. This is because it would require an infinity of infinitely precise divisions concerning every infinitesimal defining portion of an object. Energy is infinitely divisible.
The entire discussion is about being technically accurate in the language of math (so as to never allow future mistakes). It has nothing to do with common living or even highly technical calculations (yet).
It is a discussion concerning being philosophically precise (for philosophers).
Good Job!
This is a great analogy.
So the OP is basically saying that because something isn’t easily representable in English, that means it’s impossible in reality. I pointed out that it is easily representable in Chinese. He maintains that that doesn’t matter, it’s still not possible in reality.
So apparently he thinks reality operates in English. And apparently so do you.
Just to get everything on the table, Obsrvr, so you know what you’re agreeing with when you agree with him:
1/4 is easily representable as 0.25 in base 10. 1/3 is an infinite decimal in base 10. Those facts prove, according to op, that in reality you CAN divide a pie into 4 equal pieces, and you CANNOT divide a pie into 3 equal pieces.
And the fact that 1/4 is an infinite decimal in base 9 and 1/3 is a very short simple finite decimal in base 9 doesn’t matter.
You agree with him on all of those points? And you and him both think that reality itself operates in base 10?
One under base always causes this problem.
I don’t know why. But it’s always true.
Numbers divisible by 1 under base always cause this problem as well. The number that can be subtracted from the lowest divisible from 1 under base cause this problem as well (the number 7 = 10-3)
It happens in every base.
I said that I wouldn’t burst your bubble concerning your QM religion - but on this issue - put on your shades mate - the light’s on the rise. 
Please point out where he mentions a pie in the OP - or any physical object.
And perhaps you didn’t read far enough for this post -
Or is it that you are not a philosopher? I can’t claim to be one - but I can tell when an argument is made for one.
This, in the first page of the thread, is where he mentions a pie.
He then later claims that you CAN divide it into 4 pieces.
You’re coming into this thread apparently agreeing with him, I just want it to be clear to what extent you are actually agreeing with the things he’s said. He has said that you cannot divide a pie into 3 equal pieces, but you can divide a pie into 4 equal pieces. Do you agree with him on those statements?
It’s not a trick question.
Shifting goal posts - from “in the OP” to “on the first page” - that’s naughty. But it’s okay - you are going to need all the help you can cheat up.
To directly answer your question - I agree with the fact that he has not made a single error in anything he has said so far (reminds me of James in that regard).
Note that the Title of the thread is 1 Divided by 3 - it doesn’t point out any particular base - and that means it is up to him as to which base he meant - and so he told you (not that he should have needed to).
He offered to clear up the issue - “I am speaking of base 10, yes.”
What more did you want him to do? - start a new thread specifying it in the title for those incapable of common sense?
Obviously for any rational observer - he is referring to “1 WHOLE” - abstractly of anything - and still only concerning a quantity represented in the base 10 numbering system.
It is about quantities - not objects (or did you want me to assume that your “spinning photon” detector analogy was about actual red and blue scribbles on the paper? - was your “6.25” in base 10? or is QM only for base 10 reality?)
I literally never said ‘in the op’. I said ‘the op is basically saying’. The phrase ‘the op’ can mean ‘Original Poster’. If you google, ‘what does OP mean?’, ‘original poster’ is the top answer.
I don’t blame you for misinterpreting it, but I do blame you for misquoting me there. You don’t need to put quotes around things I didn’t write. That’s now how quote marks work.
So you are both making claims about reality as if reality is based on a base-10 number system.
You and him seem to both be making the same error. I was never confused about what base he was talking about. I understand that the logic and math he uses applies to base 10. What needed clarity was if he was JUST talking about base 10 number systems, or if he was making an objective claim about reality. “you cannot divide 1 by 3 in base 10” is a fundamentally different sort of statement from “you cannot divide a pie into 3 equal pieces”.
But I guess you both think that reality IS entirely based on the base 10 number system, so maybe claims about the base 10 number system are synonymous with claims about reality for you two. Maybe that’s the source of the confusion for you guys there. Other people do NOT assume that reality is entirely fundamentally based on the base 10 number system.
So “OP” only means what YOU want it to mean. And when he says “1 divided by 3” it also only means what you want it to mean. =D>
Narcissistic are we?
You are giving me the impression that you only read what you want to read. How many times do I have to repeat -
Would it help if I typed slower?
He never said anything about “objective reality” (although I did to clear up what others were saying).
[b]Again - am I to assume that your 10,000 balls QM analogy proves only that QM reality requires base 10? If we just change to base 16 (more computer friendly) we can forget all about the QM nonsense?
You are the one who can’t keep his language separate from his reality.[/b]
Your tone in this thread, and you bringing up disagreements from other threads, leads me to think that you have some axe to grind. Did I do something to get under your skin?
You are projecting (a reflection of your own ill intent).
Bold is to get your attention - it has nothing to do with anger or hostility - don’t be such a snowflake mate.
If I feel hostile - I just blow you off and go somewhere more fun - MIJOT is the game.
The issue as I see it so far is that you are very myopic about things you want to believe in order to support your bubble of belief - many people do that. On a philosophy board you should expect to get argument. Don’t project your fear into hostility from others and you won’t see it where it doesn’t exist.
That same issue seems to guide what you read from what others write - you believe what you prefer to believe rather than accept what the author intended to say.
That same issue is reflected in your QM beliefs - you believe it because you want it bad enough to avoid looking for its flaws.
Motor Daddy is far more logical and rational - analytically correct (although I haven’t seen any more than this one thread of his so far).