• ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    1
    arrow-down
    10
    ·
    5 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.

    • WldFyre
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      12
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      5 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.

      • ColeSloth@discuss.tchncs.de
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        arrow-down
        12
        ·
        5 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.

        • WldFyre
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          14
          ·
          5 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@lemmy.world
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          5
          ·
          5 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.

          • Klear@sh.itjust.works
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            1
            ·
            5 months ago

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

            • pyre@lemmy.world
              link
              fedilink
              English
              arrow-up
              3
              ·
              5 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.

              • Klear@sh.itjust.works
                link
                fedilink
                English
                arrow-up
                1
                ·
                5 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@lemmy.world
                  link
                  fedilink
                  English
                  arrow-up
                  3
                  ·
                  5 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.