The distance.
Said another way, the light travel time.
checks calculator
Holy. Sh**.
Do not doubt this one.
That’s called basic/simple addition, of integers… a starting point in learning maths… add, subtract, divide, multiplication, then…
Do you be, intentionally obtuse?
That is what I am talking about, 1 divided by 2. Basic simple division. But some people claim 1 divided by 2 = 3 pies.
Nah. “Some” people are claiming that “1 group of three pies” divided into “3” equal parts is “1 pie”. Noone is saying “1 divided by 3 is 1”. That’s your own invention. The point is that when you take 1 group of three pies and divided it into 3 equal parts ( an operation equivalent to the operation of “1 divided by 3” ), you get a result, that result being “1 pie”. That tells us that “1 divided by 3” does have a result.
Your entire argument, so far, has been that, because we can’t find the base-10 representation of the result of the operation of dividing 1 by 3, it follows that such a result does not exist. That’s based on an unstated premise that, if a number does not have a base-10 representation, that that number does not exist. That is false. It is false because base-10 system of notation does not cover all numbers.
You’ve been already told that the result of “1 divided by 3” has a representation in base-3 system, namely, (0.1_3). But your response to that was that (0.1_3) is a result of (1_3) divided by (10_3) rather than 1 divided by 3. Obviously, you don’t understand the difference between a representation of a number and a number itself. You don’t understand that “(1_3) divided by (10_3)” and “1 divided by 3” are two different expressions of one and the same number. And you don’t understand that (0.1_3) is the result of BOTH operations ( given that they are one and the same operation. )
If, on the other hand, all you want to say is that 1/3 has no base-10 representation, then why don’t you say so? Noone disputes that.
1/3 is 0.3333…
Problem solved.
You’re welcome.
Not true.
Magnus, how did you come to the conclusion that a group of 3 pies divided into 3 equal parts means each part is 1 pie?
Oh wait, what you did was 3 pies divided by 3 = 1 pie
But you know we are not talking about dividing 3 pies into 3 parts, we are talking about dividing the 1 group.
Mathematically speaking, how did you come to the conclusion that 1 divided by 3 means each part is 1 pie?
Show me your math. Show me how the operation of 1 divided by 3 ends up being 1 pie?
Sorry you are too dumb for 5th grade math.
I divided “1 group of three pies” into “3” equal parts.
I never actually came to that conclusion. “1 divided by 3” isn’t “1 pie”. Rather, “1 group of three pies” divided by “3” is “1 pie”. And that is relevant because “1 group of three pies divided by 3” is an instance of “1 divided by 3”.
I didn’t use math. I simply took 1 group of three pies and split it into 3 equal parts. I did it manually.
You’ve been indoctrinated, kiddo.
Oh, so instead of dividing 1 group into 3 equal parts you decided to answer a different question of “1 group of 3 pies” divided into 3 equal parts.
For the last time, the question has no mention of 3 pies, the question is simply 1 group divided into 3 equal parts. No 3 pies about it.
Why not just make it a group of 100 pies, that doesn’t work for your bs?
Imagine not even being able to do 1/3 and figure out the decimal result. A new low even for someone as epically retarded as magnus.
Noone is talking about “3 pies” except for you.
That’s the question that I am addressing.
“1 group of three pies” is an example of “1 group”.
I’m sure that, had I used “1 group of one hundred pies” to support your claim, you’d have nothing against it. I’m sure you wouldn’t have said a single word against it. But because I am using something that disproves your silly claim, you’re desperately trying to render it as invalid. But you’re not doing a good job at it.
“1 group of three pies” is an instance of “1 group” and an instance of “1”.
Other than kropotin you are by far the most deliberately stupid person ive known.
Doing it manually is not math?
This reminds me of that one time in cognition when they said animal language is not language.
In a universe where the genetic code is acknowledged to be code… we can manually manipulate.
Feel free to prove it, kiddo.
Counting isn’t math. Math is that which allows you to avoid counting.
1 represents the whole infinite. Boom. Solved.
UNLESS there’s no fricken pie. Then you got another problem on your hands.
Hm. Maybe math isn’t so bad after all.
paradigm shifts