There you go again talking about pies.
You can not divide 1 group into 3 parts and claim 1/3 of the group is 1.0. If 1/3 of the group is 1 then the other 2/3 of the group is 0. That means the parts are not equal.
So you agree that 1 group of 100 pies can’t be divided into 3 equal parts?
That’s not what I’m doing. That’s your own invention.
I did not say I do.
If you’re not clear on what the parts are, you’re not really dividing anything.
#UnpopularOpinion
Let’s talk about the parts of society versus parts of a group of pies. You can separate individual pies and still have pie. You cannot separate parts of society and still have society.
If you want to talk about persons in society, are they like physical pies (body only)? Things could get weird.
So you think you can divide a group of 100 pies into 3 equal parts? Can it be done, yes or no?
You will have remainder pie(s) to slice into evenly. Can’t do the same thing with individuals in a society… unless you’re just talking bodies. That’s a different kind of gross.
Why should I answer that question?
Suppose that you’re right. Suppose that it is true that we cannot divide 1 group of hundred pies into 3 equal parts. What does that mean? Does that mean that we can’t divided 1 by 3? Of course not. But maybe you think it does. If you do, why don’t you first tell us why? You can’t just ask questions and expect people to answer them. You must prove to them that your questions are relevant – that is, if they don’t already see them as relevant. That’s how communication works.
Can you divide “1 indivisible thing” into “2” equal parts? You can’t, right? You can’t because indivisible things are, by definition, indivisible. An indivisible thing is a thing that cannot be divided into more than 1 part; it is a thing that has no parts other than itself. So “1 indivisible thing” cannot be divided into ANY number of equal parts other than 1. Does that mean that 1 cannot be divided by 2, that 1 cannot be divided by 3, that 1 cannot be divided by 4 and so on ad infinitum? Of course not.
Back to your question. Although there is no need to take your question seriously, given that I don’t see its relevance and that I see it as nothing but distraction, a desperate attempt of yours to try to defend your claim, I will nonetheless address it.
Can we take “1 group of hundred pies” and divide it into “3” equal parts?
Are these pies divisible? To what extent are they divisible i.e. into how many parts can we divide a single pie? Are they all equally divisible? If each pie is indivisible, then you can’t divide the group into 3 equal parts. The best you can do is divide it into one group of 33 pies, one group of 33 pies and one group of 34 pies. But if each pie can be cut into 3 equal parts – 3 equal slices – then the the group can be divided into 3 equal parts. The result would be “100 slices” or “1 group of hundred slices” where “slice” is taken to mean “one-third of a pie”.
I mean in some sense necessary being (infinite whole or whole infinite) must in some way or sense be di (or tri… teheh!) visible or there would be no contingent being (us).
Yes or no.
It either can be done or it can’t.
What say you?
Complexity.
Irreducible complexity.
Lovely party.
I already answered your question.
Three signs that someone isn’t putting enough effort into a conversation:
they respond quickly
they write short responses
they repeat themselves
All of these indicate that the person isn’t thinking – thinking being a process of forming new beliefs based on existing ones, or at least, a process of revising existing beliefs – but relying on their memory i.e. on a set of beliefs that they have formed in the past, perhaps long before the conversation even started. Thinking takes time. Fast responses indicate lack of thought. The consequences of such a behavior include such things as a) failure to understand what the other person is trying to say, and b) failure to effectively address the other person’s points. Short responses can, but do not necessarily, indicate that the person is allocating very little amount of time ( i.e. laziness. ) And repetition indicates, but not necessarily always, that the person is failing to adapt, most likely as a consequence of not fully appreciating the other side’s points.
All of that indicates that the interlocutor entered the conversation with an unyielding conviction that they are right and that everyone else is wrong.
How to give the appearance of open-mindedness:
respond slowly: if someone tells you 2+2=5 just pause, hold space introspectively, make spooky eye contact like you’re Dracula reading where they went wrong, then…
say long response: put a parenthesis after the current convo so all know you will return to it, and within the parentheses provide a complete history of the development of the issue, then… after closing parentheses…
never repeat yourself: it’s a sign of your weakness & their failure to listen… if anything, make them reread the passage out loud until the meaning slaps them upside the head miraculously. If all else fails, rephrase as vaguely as possible so it doesn’t resemble repetition. Then just kick them out if they still don’t get it.
Yea… but the resultant answer is unit-specified, so not wrong.
…one can even convert centimetres to inches and kilometres to miles… and don’t even get me started on having to convert your American ‘cups’ to grams or ounces. 
In Europe a meal might be 500 calories, but an American will have to have that converted to bullets per square school
I would, but you aren’t able to do 5th grade math, so what would be the point? It’s gibberish to you.
No, just call them an idiot and move on. At least that way you pay them the respect of honesty.
Unnecessary.
Unnecessary.
Ok now you’re getting somewhere
Now that’s a sad notion to have to mathematise… 
i wonder what the percentage of people with a moral compass, regardless of mental state, is. 
You’re a master at making excuses, I’ll you give that. Here’s a question for you. What’s the point of your presence in this thread or this forum in general? All you do is shit-post like a spoiled 13 year old child. You’re demolishing BOTH your own life AND this very forum ( an already demolished place. ) Yet, you have no issue doing that. As far as you’re concerned, that’s absolutely fine. But when someone asks you to do something useful, something that grown-ups do, you refuse on the ground that it’s pointless. “You won’t understand it, so it’s pointless” nonsense. We’re supposed to believe that mindlessly attacking others, rambling and posting “funny” GIF’s ( on a philosophy forum, no less ) is time better spent than genuinely trying to resolve disagreements. I find it difficult to believe, I am afraid. It’s more likely the case that you avoid debates because 1) you do not know how to debate, and 2) you’re afraid you’d have to face the fact the fact that you aren’t quite as smart and as independent as you think you are.
Let me reiterate. Either you prove your claim that 1/3 = 0.333… or you leave this thread. If you aren’t going to argue your case, you have nothing to do here. In fact, I’m sure you know absolutely nothing about this subject ( beside what they indoctrinated you in school ) and you’re here merely in order to disagree.
Sorry I didnt read any of that
But you keep being you. I hope you can find a 5th or 4th grade elementary school math textbook to explain to you what division means.
Cheers brotha 
=D>