[ home ] [ math / cs / ai / phy / as / chem / bio / geo ] [ civ / aero / mech / ee / hdl / os / dev / web / app / sys / net / sec ] [ med / fin / psy / soc / his / lit / lin / phi / arch ] [ off / vg / jp / 2hu / tc / ts / adv / hr / meta / tex ] [ chat ] [ wiki ]

/math/ - Mathematics


Name
Email
Subject
Comment
Verification
Instructions:
  • Press the Get Captcha button to get a new captcha
  • Find the correct answer and type the key in TYPE CAPTCHA HERE
  • Press the Publish button to make a post
  • Incorrect answer to the captcha will result in an immediate ban.
File
Password (For file deletion.)

25 Dec 2021Mathchan is launched into public

4 / 2 / 4 / ?

File: stevin.png ( 123.72 KB , 1262x1779 , 1651889952353.png )

Image
In his work which introduced decimals to Europe, Stevin wrote (converting it to modern notation) that when you divide 0.4 ÷ 0.03, the algorithm gives you infinitely many 3's. But he didn't call this infinite result an exact answer. Instead he noted 13.33⅓ and 13.333⅓ as exact answers while recommending instead truncating to 13.33 or however near the answer you require. So clearly the main idea of infinite decimals giving arbitrarily good approximations was there. But at what point did people start saying things like 0.4 ÷ 0.03 = 13.333... exactly?
>>
To give an answer you need to define what is "13.333... exactly". If you define it as an infinite string to the right, an algorithm that calculates it (using the rules of addition and multiplication) will print it in infinite time. Mentioning the algorithm here is for intuition, in fact if you define operations on infinite strings that way, it will do so. The nerds can refer to the axiom of choice.

(In your post you used the word "approximate". Ask yourself the question -- "approximate what?")
>>
>>214
13.333... is the real number approximated by the sequence 13.3, 13.33, 13.333, ..., or in more precise terms, its limit.
>>
When people say 1/3 = .333... or anything like that, by defining the right side so that it would be true, it's bad notation. 1/3 can't be written as a decimal expansion because the division always results in a remainder. But you can have a number where there is always an extra 3 added to the expansion, so it would be an unending number of 3s, like .3 + .03 + .003 and so on. I would like to use an infinite series here to make it neater but it's unfortunately defined according to limits so I will avoid it here as limits are not part of the discussion, only true values. If you do have such an unending string of 3s in the decimal expansion, it will not be equal to 1/3. since the difference between it and 1/3 is always greater than 0, no matter how long the string stretches. There are quite a few numbers that can't be written using decimal expansions, 1/3 is just one of them.
>>

File: Fire.jpg ( 28.48 KB , 282x288 , 1692557240604.jpg )

Image
Paul Erdös has constructed a proof that the Copeland-Erdős constant is relatively normal.

Can someone help me understand the proof?