/sci/ - Science & Math

>>11382572
The problem is converting a fraction to a decimal? Aren't infinitely repeating numbers irrational?

>>11382601
So then doesn't that make 100 irrational? In that case 100 still wouldn't be 100.

>>11382612
No because it can written as a fraction. 33.333.... infinitely repeating cannot. There has to be a number between each number and the problem is in the fraction to decimal. This used to be a meme and I can't remember the answer. You can probably find an answer on google.

>>11382620
100 is just 100/1 so it's a fraction, 33.333333/1 is also a fraction, i guess not a rational one but integers aren't numbers between numbers either.

Thus (100 / 3) x 3 equals some radical form of 99 which is actually 100 and 100 is actually that.

Thus 100 isn't really 100.

>>11382623
33.333 is not 33.333...

>>11382601
If digits repeats number is rational, if they never repeat number is irrational. 33.333333(3) is rational number

>>11382627
>>11382628

33.333333 is rational, as is 100.
Therefore they're both rational or neither of them are which wouldn't matter in either direction and when you're dividing them and remultiplying and you get some 99.999999 type shit which is just as rational as 33.333333 and is just as rational as 100, because it is 100 and 100 is it.

100 isn't really 100.

>>11382628
>>11382632
How can you add an infinitely repeating number when you can't calculate to infinity? When we calculate to pi we don't calculate to 10000 places. So you're adding incorrectly buy saying you can even add 33.3333...

You're pretending we can add 33.333.... when we cant. Again this was a meme from like 2010.

>>11382651
You can add anything you massive nigger, 33.3333 33 + 33.333333 + 33.333333 = 99.999999 which is a form of 100 because it is 100.
I'm not adding incorrectly, those infinite threes are still fucking three, adding three and three is nine.
The component pieces of one hundred equal 99.999999. Which does not equal 100.
100 doesn't even equal itself.

>>11382627
>>11382628
>>11382632
>>11382651
ALL WRONG

100 / 3 = 33.333...

3 x 33.333 = 99.999 <--- This is WRONG
3 x 33.333 + ... = 100 <--- This is RIGHT

Brainlets.

>>11382572
100 = 1

Break it down:

1 = 1

2 x 0 = 0

>ITT brainlets get confused by number bases

We get this thread every other week even though proof is taught at high school level. This is some worn out bait if I've ever seen it.

To break it down though, in case anyone is actually confused by this:

Let x=99.9999...
so 10x=999.9999...
10x-x=999.9999...-99.9999...
9x=900
x=100
therefore 99.9999...=100
QED

>>11382807
No you brainlet, 10 isn't 10 in the same way 100 isn't 100.

>>11382627
Correct, it's not.

Why is /sci/ so retarded when it comes to math?
I see threads like this way too often, asking stuff that maybe confusing at first but is really not when you take a look at definitions.

100/3 is not equal to 33.33333333 or 33.3333333333333 or whatever. It is equal to 33.3... with infinite 3s. But that is still rational(can be written as a quotient of 2 integers) because you can write it as 100/3.
100/3 * 3 = 100. Or if you wanna go with the 33.3... representation it is 33.3... * 3 = 99.9... Which is EXACTLY equal to 100.