LOL
Call it what you like, but don’t call it a stack, because a stack is from floor to ceiling!
The UNIT OF MEASURE is STACK.
If you divide 1 stack into 3 equal pieces, each piece is .333… of a stack.
Like I was saying with DOZEN. Dozen is the unit of measure. 1 Dozen divided into two equal parts means each part is .5 dozen. 1 divided by 2 is .5, not 6! The unit is DOZEN, and you have 2 parts, each being .5 of a dozen.
Call it a stack if you want but - you had claimed that was impossible (and were right up to that point) - but actually I divided the stack into 1/3rds of a stack - which you also said was impossible.
I only mentioned you because most people on this forum (including me) disagree with most if not all of your statements and think they are a rare and an extreme kind of wrong. For example, I believe that your statement that “1=0” is considered by pretty much everyone on this forum to be a rare kind of false belief. I only mentioned you in order to draw attention to what I perceive to be phyllo’s relatively selective criticism.
It is impossible, because you never completely divided the remainder into 3 equal parts, hence the .333… It is infinite because you can never divide the remainder equally, so you have 3 parts of .333… and the remaining remainder part that is the 4th part.
As I said in that math thread of yours, I completely agree with you insofar you are merely claiming that (\frac{1}{3}) has no base-10 equivalent. If you’re saying more than that, e.g. that we cannot divide a pie into three equally sized pieces, then I don’t. There’s a very subtle distinction between the two statements and I’m not sure you’re seeing it. It’s very much possible that the disagreement lies precisely in that – poor communication.
The 3 1/3rds of the whole stack don’t need a 4th part.
I already showed that you can not divide 1 into 3 equal parts in ANY base.
If you think you can divide 1 into 3 equal pieces then what percent are the 3 equal pieces that add up to 100%?? Percent is not just a base 10 thing. 100% means a WHOLE, 1.00.
You don’t have 3 thirds, you have 3 parts of .333… and a remaining remainder that can not be divided equally. You are automatically assuming that you can divide 1 by 3 and get 3 equal parts, but you can’t!
I can’t remember which argument I used when I presented 1=0. My best guess is that it was an argument about convergence of series. If that argument is true, than all divergent series equal zero.
It’s not a complicated argument.
I think I used a different argument though, can’t remember it.
I made the argument to show how absurd convergent series are.
It wasn’t wrong and I’m not crazy.
You’re amazing.
So when I separated the stacks of 3 blocks each out of the whole stack of 9 blocks - how is that NOT 3 equal parts of the original whole stack? 1 divided into 3 equal parts?
Math ILP style
[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oN2_NarcM8c[/youtube]
Let’s include Ecmandu, this time. 
You never did get the dozen eggs example, did you?
All you are saying is that 1/3 of a dozen eggs is 4 eggs, and 4x3=12.
But 1 dozen divided by 3 means 3 parts of .333…dozen, and .333…x3=.999…, which is LESS THAN 1 Dozen, it is only 99.999…% of a dozen.
Why don’t the 3 pieces of .333… dozen add up to 1.0 Dozen that you started with? It works with 4x3=12, why not .333…x3=1.0? Why is .333…x3 equal to .999… and not 1.0???
Now answer the question -
Well, if you think that (\frac{1}{3}) has no equivalent in any base, then I don’t completely agree with you (only partially.)
I think the problem I found with your argument was that you were assuming that (\frac{1}{3} = 0.\dot3). That’s a false premise.
Because that is NINE DIVIDED BY THREE. We are not talking about 9/3=3, we are talking about 1/3=.333…
The question is WHY??? WHY is the answer .333… infinite?? Can you answer that?
Because (\frac{1}{3}) has no representation in base-10.
Because 100% can’t be divided into 3 equal parts that add up to 100%.
Clever phyllo,
But my point was to make convergent series look absurd by explaining that all numbers also have divergent series.
Completely different argument than dealing with whole numbers.
Yes, that’s your opinion. Mine is different.
It’s not even an opinion motor.
You’re confusing base 10 notation (1.0) with base nine actuality.