The Impossibility Of The First 100 Decimal Places Of Pi...

Philosophy Forums Science, Technology, and Math
221

I think your problem is that you spend too little time listening to other people which necessarily results in you failing to understand what they are saying and unnecessarily repeating yourself.

You know how they say: insanity is doing one and the same thing over and over again while expecting different results. Your approach is obviously ineffective, and yet, you keep using it. There is no effort on your part to adjust to the situation. You just keep repeating one and the same thing over and over again.

Your claim is that we can divide a group consisting of 12 things into three equally-sized sub-groups (which is, in itself, a proof that we can divide a whole into three equal parts given that the mentioned group is a whole, a single thing, not merely 12 things) but that we cannot divide a group consisting of one thing into three equally-sized sub-groups (without explaining why other than because 1/3 has no decimal equivalent.)

222

“12 bananas” and “1 group of twelve bananas” are equivalent expressions utilizing different units. The first uses bananas as a unit, the second uses groups of twelve bananas as a unit. What that means is that, if you can cut 12 bananas into 3 equally-sized sub-groups, you can also cut a single group into 3 equally-sized sub-groups. It’s really that simple. To say that you can cut the former, but not the latter, is to contradict yourself because the two expressions have one and the same meaning i.e. they refer to the same thing.

It would be nice if we could return to this post of mine.

You agreed that your claim is that a whole cannot be divided into 3 equal parts.

You also agreed that a group of three bananas is a whole.

The next question is:

Do you agree that it is possible to cut the mentioned whole into 3 sub-groups each containing the same number of bananas, that number being one?

223

Magnus,

Just answer this for me:

Do you agree that 1.00 is 100% and 12.00 is 1200%?

224

No! That would be making the same mistake as obsrvr makes, which is starting with 1 dollar, dividing it into 3 equal parts and ending up with 3 dollars.

Again, using an example of dividing into 4 equal parts:

1 group divided into 4 equal parts means each part is .25, or each part is 25%.
1 banana is not 25%, it is 100%. You can’t divide 1.0 into 4 parts of 1.0.

The UNIT is GROUP, and there are 1.0 of them. Do you not know the difference in the quantity, which is 1.0, and the unit, which is group?

1.0 Group divided into 4 equal parts means each part is .25 Group. The 4 equal parts are not each 1.0 banana. That would mean the whole is 4.0, which it is not!

225

Now you’re starting understand how illogical our system is after I explain this to you.

1.0 is actually 1% in base ten compared to 100.

Actually in base 10. 10 is the standard, not 100.

12 is actually 1 in base 12.

I know this all sounds convoluted. Welcome to the real world.

Humans are in their infancy with math. But it’s entertaining… you have to give it that.

In actual reality… whole numbers are irrational numbers.

But let’s not go too fast.

We access eternal forms to create category so we can discern. You need that to be sentient.

226

1.00 is 100%, it is 100 Hundredths. It is 100/100
.99 is 99 Hundredths. It is 99/100

100.00 is 10,000 Hundredths, or 10,000%. It is 10,000/100

227

This is one of the most nonsense things I’ve seen someone attempt with math. So. 1 is 100% in every base? And nothing else is?

228

1 is a number, which is placed in a position either to the left of a point “.” or the right of a point.

It looks like this: 1.0
It can look like this: 100.0
It can look like this: 0.001

See? There is a number 1 placed in different positions.

Different bases have different meanings for each of those positions.

So in base 10, 10.0 is a “1” in the “Tens” position, which is this many: “0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0”
In base 6, 10.0 is a “1” in the “Sixes” position, which is this many: “0 0 0 0 0 0”

In base 10, 1.0 is this many “Tenths”: “0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0”
In base 10, 0.1 is this many “Tenths”: “0”

In base 6, 1.0 is this many “Sixths”: “0 0 0 0 0 0”
In base 6, 0.1 is this many “Sixths”: “0”

In base 10, 0.1 means this: 0 / 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
In base 6, 0.1 means this: 0 / 0 0 0 0 0 0

In base 10 you count 1,2,3,4,5,6,7,8,9,10,11,12
In base 6 you count 1,2,3,4,5,10,11,12

In base 6, if you cut a pizza into this many slices: “0 0 0 0 0 0” the slices are each .1, so if you count as you add them up it goes .1 , .2 , .3 , .4 , .5 , 1.0
In base 10 if you cut a pizza into this many slices: “0 0 0 0 0 0” the slices are each .1666…, so if you count as you add them up it goes .1666… , .333… , .5 , .666… , .8333… , 1.0

Note that having .1 in base 6 is having the equivalent of base 10 16.666…%, .2 is having 33.333…%, and .3 is having 50%.

229

Yes. 100% is 100/100 which is 1. And the same goes for 12 and 1200%. I don’t see what’s the relevant of this question though.

230

Good, so you agree.

Do you agree that 1,200% can be divided into 3 equal parts of 400% each?

Do you think you can divide 100% into 3 equal parts?

231

100% in base 12 can easily be divided into 3 parts.

Once you’ve use a placeholder, not even different symbols, you’ve entered a new base.

Can you do it with a placeholder?

No.

That’s what causes repeating rational decimals (we’re not even talking about irrationals right now).

1 minus the equal root of base causes repeating decimals.

For base 10. This means 3,6,9. Then you take the equal root of 9 and subtract it from base.

That’s 10-3 which equals 7.

Those are the only repeating decimals in all bases. I’m
Giving you the base 10 version right now.

But.

Those are rational numbers.

If you can’t even understand rational numbers, talking about irrational numbers is laughable.

You use the denotation of zeros to explain a base.

0000

000000

Etc.

That means you’re talking in base unary. Not base 10.

232

Are you sure?

Let me check this one more time.

You don’t think that a group of three bananas can be cut into 3 sub-groups each containing one banana?

That’s not what we did. We didn’t divide a group of three bananas into 3 groups of three bananas. Rather, we divided a group of three bananas into 3 groups each group containing exactly one banana. What we divide (“the dividend”) is “one group of three bananas”, what we divide it by (“the divisor”) is “3” and the result (“the quotient”) is “one banana”. As you can see, the dividend and the quotient are not the same. “One group of three bananas” and “one banana” are not the same thing. The only reason you’re claiming they are the same thing is because you are focusing on the number and ignoring the unit that is being used. You aren’t free to do that. The numbers are indeed the same but that does not make them the same thing.

According to your own logic, 0.25 is not a number because 0.25 is a shorthand for “2/10 + 5/100” which is a sum of fractions and you don’t consider such to be numbers. And because you’re looking for a number, and not a sum of fractions, it follows that 0.25 is not a valid answer.

“One banana” can only be 100% of something. It can’t be 100% on its own. For example, one banana is 100% of itself. But at the same time, it is 25% of a group of four bananas. “One banana” is not a percentage – it is not a number at all. Rather, it is a combination of a number and a unit. And this is basically your mistake.

I am fully aware of the difference between numbers and units. But you are obviously not aware of the fact that the use of different units is intentional and certainly not mistaken. The point is that “one banana” (which is neither a unit nor a number, but a combination of the two) is “one third” (which is a number) of “a group of three bananas” (another number-unit combination.) The point is to show that there are things in reality that are one third of (= 3 times smaller than) some other things. The units DO NOT have to be the same. It is you insisting on them to be the same for no valid reason whatsoever. (And you’re not merely insisting on that, you’re also insisting on using decimal numbers.)

If we’re dividing a group of four bananas, then yes, each resulting part is “1 banana” as well as “25% of the group of four bananas”. It is both not merely one or the other. And the same applies to the group. It is both “one group of four bananas” as well as “four bananas”. These are merely different expressions of one and the same thing. Your mistake lies in focusing all of your attention on the number and none on the unit.

233

Yes, 1200 / 3 = 400%. And yes, 100% can be divided into 3 equal parts.

Now you’re going to ask me the usual question that you ask:
What is 100% divided by 3 equal to?

And I’ll respond with “It’s equal to 1/3”.

And then you’re going to tell me that’s an invalid answer because “1/3” is a fraction and not a number.

And then I am going to repeat what I just said in my previous post which is that even though 0.2 is a shorthand for a fraction that is “2/10” you still consider it to be a number.

234

But we are not dividing four bananas into 4 equal parts, we are dividing 1 into 4 equal parts.

You want to try to change the division from 1 divided by 4 to 4 divided by 4.

Again, the division is 100% divided into 4 equal parts, not 400% into 4 equal parts.

100/4=25
400/4=100

That is two different animals. We are talking about the division of 100/4, not 400/4.

You are stuck on knowing there are 4 bananas. That is like saying 12 eggs. I already acknowledged that 12 eggs can be divided into 3 equal parts of 4 eggs each. Do you understand?

The math is completely different for dividing 12 eggs into 3 equal parts, and dividing 1 Dozen into 3 equal parts.

12 eggs can be divided into 3 equal parts because 12 divided by 3 equals 4.
1 Dozen can not be divided by 3 because 1 divided by 3 can not be done!

235

I am asking you what 100 divided by 3 equals and your response is “100/3.” DUH!

It’s no different than me asking you what 4 divided by 2 is and you responding with 4/2. DUH?

If I ask you what 4 divided by 2 equals I am asking you once the division is completed what is the answer? I am asking you what 2 + 2 equals, and I want an answer like “4”, not 2/1 + 2/1, and not 3 + 1, and not 5-1.

236

We are dividing one group of four bananas into 4 equal parts. Emphasis is on the word “one”. It’s one group, it’s not four groups.

Not at all. A group of four bananas is one thing. As such, when we divide a group of four bananas into four equally sized parts, we are dividing one thing into four parts. In other words, we’re dividing 1 by 4.

Yes but you did not acknowledge that the above implies that 1 egg can be divided into 3 equal parts. Dividing 12 eggs into 3 equal parts is exactly the same process as dividing one group of 12 eggs into 3 equal parts. If you can do either, you can do both.

Maths is all about numbers. It’s unit-agnostic. There is no such thing as “1 dozen divided by 3” in maths. Rather, there is “1 / 3”. And yes, “12/3” and “1/3” are not merely different expressions, they are also different numbers. And yes, the process of calculating the result is also different. But none of that is relevant. What I’m trying to show you here is that 1/3 is a real number even though there is no decimal representation of it. “1/3” merely means “one third” (or “three times less”) and by showing you that there are things that are one third of something else I can show you that “one third” is not merely a proper concept but also something that can be found in physical reality. An example of a thing that is one third of something else is a banana. A banana is one third of a group of three bananas. And it doesn’t even matter whether you say “a group of three bananas” or merely “three bananas”. Either way, a banana is one third of it.

The problem here is that you do not acknowledge that “1/3” is a representation of a number. You insist that it’s merely a fraction (as if fractions aren’t numbers.) But when I push you by showing you that even things that you consider numbers, such as 0.2, are fractions, you remain silent.

237

Four bananas has nothing to do with it.
We are dividing 1 group into 4 parts.
We are trying to find out what percent of the group each part is.

100%/4=25%
So each part is 25%, and there are 4 of them, so 25% x 4 = 100%

No mention of four bananas. The math couldn’t care less how many bananas are in the group. The math is dividing 100% into 4 equal parts, of which the answer is how many percent each of the 4 parts is.

It does not matter how many bananas are in the group. There could be 2,173 bananas in the group, and the answer is still 25% for each of the 4 parts. There could be 3 bananas in the group, and the answer is still 25% for each of the 4 parts.
Bananas has NOTHING to do with dividing 1.0 group into 4 equal parts.

238

Ok. Motor Daddy. I have an entire cosmos on my mind. I can’t deal with this anymore.

You think every base equals 1 and that 1 equals 100% in every base.

Does it ever occur to you that 1 can equal 13 without contradiction?

239

The question was “What is 100% divided by 3?” I responded with “It’s 1/3”. I didn’t merely repeat what was supposed to be translated to a different language. I didn’t say “It’s 100% divided by 3”. I didn’t even say “100% / 3” or “(100 / 100) / 3”. So you’re exaggerating.

But yes, if you want your question to be properly answered, you have to make it clear. You have to make sure that we know what kind of answer you’re looking for. And don’t do that “You are supposed to know” thing. That serves no purpose other than to stifle the conversation.

What is it that you’re looking for? You said that you’re looking for a number and that “1/3” is not a number because it is a fraction and fractions aren’t numbers. But so is 0.5, and yet, you are happy saying that 1 divided by 2 is 0.5.

And I am asking you to be specific about what you’re asking. Don’t just assume that everyone knows what you’re looking for.

If you’re looking for a decimal equivalent, there isn’t one. You’ve been told this who knows how many times and by pretty much everyone. So why keep asking the same question over and over again?

The result of dividing 1 by 3 has no decimal representation but that does not mean it does not exist. So instead of repeating yourself, how about you prove this connection? How about you prove that a quantity that has no decimal representation does not exist?

I’ve shown you that 1/3 does exist. “1/3” means “three times less”. Lots of things, both imaginary and real, are three times less than something else. You don’t need long division to see it.

240

I am afraid that it does.

You are blinding yourself to the fact that bananas have to do with proving that “1/3” is a real quantity that not only exists in concept but also in reality. It is decimals that you obsess over that have nothing to do with whether or not 1/3 exists.

What you’re doing here is begging me for a decimal equivalent even though I already told you that there isn’t one. You can’t be less conversation friendly than that (well, you actually can, but this is pretty low too.)