• @[email protected]
    link
    fedilink
    English
    -93 months ago

    You’re just rounding up an irrational number. You have a non terminating, non repeating number, that will go on forever, because it can never actually get up to its whole value.

    • @[email protected]
      link
      fedilink
      English
      113 months ago

      1/3 is a rational number, because it can be depicted by a ratio of two integers. You clearly don’t know what you’re talking about, you’re getting basic algebra level facts wrong. Maybe take a hint and read some real math instead of relying on your bad intuition.

      • @[email protected]
        link
        fedilink
        English
        -113 months ago

        1/3 is rational.

        .3333… is not. You can’t treat fractions the same as our base 10 number system. They don’t all have direct conversions. Hence, why you can have a perfect fraction of a third, but not a perfect 1/3 written out in base 10.

        • @[email protected]
          link
          fedilink
          English
          143 months ago

          0.333… exactly equals 1/3 in base 10. What you are saying is factually incorrect and literally nonsense. You learn this in high school level math classes. Link literally any source that supports your position.

        • @pyre
          link
          English
          53 months ago

          .333… is rational.

          at least we finally found your problem: you don’t know what rational and irrational mean. the clue is in the name.

          • @[email protected]
            link
            fedilink
            English
            13 months ago

            TBH the name is a bit misleading. Same for “real” numbers. And oh so much more so for “normal numbers”.

            • @pyre
              link
              English
              33 months ago

              not really. i get it because we use rational to mean logical, but that’s not what it means here. yeah, real and normal are stupid names but rational numbers are numbers that can be represented as a ratio of two numbers. i think it’s pretty good.

              • @[email protected]
                link
                fedilink
                English
                13 months ago

                I know all of that, but it’s still misleading. It’s not a dumb name by any means, but it still causes confusion often (as evidenced by many comments here)

                • @pyre
                  link
                  English
                  33 months ago

                  fair enough, but i think the confusion for that commenter comes from a misunderstanding of the definition of the mathematical concept rather than the meaning of the English word. they just think irrational numbers are those that have infinite decimal digits, which is not the definition.

    • @pyre
      link
      English
      53 months ago

      non repeating

      it’s literally repeating