We are not talking about measuring, remember?
You are telling me that a diameter 1.0 circle has an infinite circumference. Got it!
Oh wait, the circumference is not infinite, it has an EXACT LENGTH, which does not need to be measured to understand that it is FINITE.
So your answer that the circumference is infinite is wrong, because the circumference is FINITE!
Back to the drawing board for you!
@mad man Exactly. Having a length of pi and having a length of infinity are not synonyms. Just because pi’s decimals go on infinitely does not mean the value of pi is infinite.
In fact you can even have a summation function were you add an infinite amount of positive numbers, and still end up with a finite value. (I might even recall hearing that pi itself can be formulated as an infinite sum function)
Edit: here it is
en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leibniz … for_%CF%80
Infinite means continuous, which continues non stop. No end.
You are contradicting yourself by claiming something is infinite, and then that it will end up as a finite value.
What you are saying is that the distance from you extending outwards from you has no end, but that you can reach the end. It’s nonsense you are speaking.
Sure, me and every other mathematician in the world are the ones who are crazy, and you’re the only sane one.
That’s what I’m trying to tell you.
…on top of that, when I explain how you can’t finish the division of 1 divided by 3 because it has a repeating remainder that can’t be divided equally, you continue to claim 1.0 = .999…
So yeah, you mathematicians are looney tunes!
You’re confused.
What you need to understand about this is that even a square has an infinite perimeter.
No matter how big a microscope you make, you’ll always find something else.
It’s eternal forms that allow us to see objects as categories when everything is so infinitely different, we’d have to look at it forever before we could name it.
Which means we could never name it.
I’m sorry. I’m sighing. I’m so tired of teaching humans.
I can talk about perceptual acuity… if you look too close at something, it’s not that thing anymore…
If you’re too far away you can’t see it.
Still stuck in base 10 huh? I guess me explaining that in other bases, you can actually easily divide 1 by 3 without any repeating decimals just… doesn’t matter? You’re too addicted to base 10 my man. There’s no reason to prioritize it like that.
Again, base 3 .2 is equal to saying base 10 .666…
And therefore base 3 1.0 is equal to saying base 10 .999…
I already explained that to you, did you forget??
Why are you converting it to base 10? I’m trying to tell you to let go of your base 10 bias, but you’re holding onto it even tighter than before. Let go man. Other bases can’t hurt you.
Motor Daddy.
No dude. What does using rational numbers have anything to do with a discussion about irrational numbers?
Even if you change bases.
You’re off topic in your own thread.
I think, from your point of view, saying “.2 in base 3 is equal to .6666… In base 10” is just setting yourself up for confusion. You don’t believe in infinite decimals, so it would be more accurate to say “.666… In base 10 is an approximation of .2 in base 3”.
That way, you can still recognize that .2 in base 3 really is a valid and accurate representation of 2/3, while still keeping yourself free of those pesky infinite decimals you hate so much. I don’t know why you don’t take that approach, other than the apparent fact that you think base 10 is somehow objectively truer than other bases.
I don’t need to convert, I am just showing you what you are doing.
In base 3 there is no 3, there is .1, .2, 1.0
To have 3 equal parts means 1 part (.1) is 33.333…%, 2 parts (.2) is 66.666…%, and 3 parts is 99.999…%
So base 3 1.0 is equal to base 10 .999…
So in base 3, when you divide an apple into 3 parts, each part is 33.333…%
The 3 parts add up to 99.999…%, not 100%
Erm… help me out…
is a second an infinite amount of time?
How about 1/10000th of a second?
How about 1/10^10000000 th of a second?
Is there a limit to the amount of decimal places we could choose to count time in?
Couldn’t we keep dividing a second into smaller and smaller fractions of a second?
if we did decide to do that… when you ask me what time it is… I could give you and infinitely long answer… if I cared to go into seconds, milliseconds and micro seconds and so on ad infinitum… but that doesn’t mean a second is an infinite amount of time even if I do care to waste your time with an infinitely precise answer into uncountable decimal places of accuracy.
A circle with a circumference of 3.15 would be a larger circle than the one with a circumference equal to Pi… no matter how long winded I get about the precision and decimals following the initial 3.14
If you don’t need to convert, then just don’t.
Every decimal place in Pi is saying the circumference is that much longer, and since you are saying Pi is infinite you are saying the circumference is infinite.
If I ask you what time it is you can not answer me with an infinite time. You can’t say it is 1.2 seconds after 1 PM, and then claim it is 1.25 seconds after 1 PM, that is TWO DIFFERENT TIMES.
That is like claiming it is 1 PM, and then claiming it is 2 PM. Duh?
And that’s before we get to dasein!!! 
Oh wow. You really don’t understand bases
Flannel was correct. You have a base 10 fetish.
In base three, 1,2, 1.0 are all whole numbers.
You have a confusion. 1.0 is written in base 10…
There’s a reason they call it a decimal!!! Base 10!!!
Your mind is stuck!!!
When you switch bases and use decimal notation it’s not in decimal anymore.
What’s the first thing I said to you in this thread?
You don’t understand bases and you don’t understand irrational numbers … very first thing I said to you in this thread. You’re still demonstrating it.
Ok… well let me play your game then…
Every decimal place is saying how much shorter it is than 3.15… it’s not saying it’s longer, it can’t ever say it’s longer. It’s only being more precise about just how short it is compared to 3.15.
OK I won’t.
Base 3:
.1 is 1 part of 1.0, because there is no number “3” in base 3.
YOU are the one converting by saying you can divide 1.0 into 3 equal parts in base 3. There is no “3” in base 3, so what do you mean by saying you can divide something into “3” parts in base 3??? There is no such animal as “3” in base 3.
Do you have me on ignore?