Bare mans using dice for singular smh.

Anyway, if you had something that weighed 2.9 something and another that weighed 3 something, on a scale the latter would tilt it slightly wouldn't it?

Nobody says die anymore, dice is singular and plural.

So we can do away with recurring numbers? 1.3999999 = 1.4. It will make maths much easier anyway.

You can probably blame the Americans.

Maybe just recognise fractions can't all be given exact decimal equivalents.

Who is in charge of maths nowadays? I'll call him/her and let him know we've come to a decision.

It's a good default position to take, aye.

Winningest thread.

tigersgogrrr wrote:

Maybe just recognise fractions can't all be given exact decimal equivalents.

Who is in charge of maths nowadays? I'll call him/her and let him know we've come to a decision.

I'm in charge and I say that all fractions can be given either a terminating decimal representation, or one that ends with a finite sequence of digits that repeats infinitely. Or ofc both, in the case we're talking about here.

It's rarely useful to write 2.99999... rather than 3. But eg 0.3333.... for a third has its users I suppose. In both cases, it means "what's the limit of this sum", so it's kinda shorthand for something sensible.

acemuzzy wrote:

Kow wrote:

Surely .33333 etc is only equal to a third because fractions can't express the same detail as a decimal. A third isn't actually exactly the same.

But it is the exact same, given what recurring means in this context.

I would argue recurring can mean two things.
The maths infinity meaning, fine in that scenario 0.99r = 1.
In real world recurring relates to a level of accuracy not recordable by pour measuring device, often at that scale unimportant but not necessarily.

We werent given any context in the OG question. In fact were invited to think practically by fucking aboutr with dice.

acemuzzy wrote:

It's rarely useful to write 2.99999... rather than 3.

If they are the same, if they equal one another, why would you need two different representations of the same 'amount'? Why do we not get rid of recurring as a Thing unless there is some manner of difference between the two?

Of this one thing.

LivDiv wrote:

acemuzzy wrote:

Kow wrote:

Surely .33333 etc is only equal to a third because fractions can't express the same detail as a decimal. A third isn't actually exactly the same.

But it is the exact same, given what recurring means in this context.

I would argue recurring can mean two things.
The maths infinity meaning, fine in that scenario 0.99r = 1.
In real world recurring relates to a level of accuracy not recordable by pour measuring device, often at that scale unimportant but not necessarily.

We werent given any context in the OG question. In fact were invited to think practically by fucking aboutr with dice.

I agree the OG was... poorly phrased. Not sure I've really seen the second use, but I've only done the mathsy suffer really so happy to take your word for it. And yes, dice schmice.

tigersgogrrr wrote:

acemuzzy wrote:

It's rarely useful to write 2.99999... rather than 3.

If they are the same, if they equal one another, why would you need two different representations of the same 'amount'? Why do we not get rid of recurring as a Thing unless there is some manner of difference between the two?

Will there isn't an alternate form for 1/3. So you kinda need it there. And it's hard to outlaw it for 0.9999.... when it's valid for 0.3333....

acemuzzy wrote:

nick_md wrote:

nick_md wrote:

Anyway, if you had something that weighed 2.9 something and another that weighed 3 something, on a scale the latter would tilt it slightly wouldn't it?

This is true isn't it? If you had sensitive enough scales anyway.

Depends what the "somethings" are, surely? If the first was 0.2 and the second 0.05, then it tilts one way; if they're 0.05 and 0.2 they tilt the other. If they're 0.0999... and 0, then they would balance exactly.

I dunno, just saying that 2.9 is surely less than 3 if using scales. Numberwang confuses me, tbf.

Diluted Dante wrote:

Basically, it's a made up number.

The thing is all of the numbers are. The ancient romans managed fine without a 2.