Think about it... how can you have 3 equal parts of an object? The decimate representation is impossible and one side always has to be bigger then the other. This is also why there is no such thing as 360 equal degrees in a circle as one degree has to be off by a little bit... There are no 360 numbers that will add up to 1 whole object either.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-26 21:54
DURR HOW DO I WORKED NUMBARS DGRUHHHHHH
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-26 22:51
I lol'd. If >>1 is serious, though, I'd lol harder.
Name:
LordRiordan2006-11-27 1:24
Seriously. One dude would be .0000000000000000000000001 off if it was 3 pieces of pie.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-27 1:37
>>4
That is only assuming that we live in a discreet universe instead of a continuous one.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-27 3:45
>>5
If you're talking physical quantities, atoms are pretty discreet. But OP is either a fucking dumbass or a decent troll.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-27 3:49
12/3=4 WTF DA VINCI CODE
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-27 3:52
.333...34 is an inaccurate representation of 1/3. Remember now, .333... + .333... + .333... = .999... = 1
>>6
just because you can't cut an atom into parts doesnt mean it's impossible
Name:
jessop2006-11-27 11:15
you are correct but if you have to remember that it's just one of those things. it's all beacuse we know maths as base 10 which isn't a very good base... the best base would probobly be 60. it has whole number answers for 1/2 1/3 1/4 1/5 1/6 which can't be said for many numbers.....
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-27 15:23
>>12
We should all switch to base infinity. Problem solved.
>>11
Enjoy your explosion. Now NO ONE gets a third of the pie. Which would mean they all got exactly the same. Which means division by three is possible?
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-27 17:05
>>13
just because you can't cut an atom apart and control the explosion doesn't mean its impossible
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-27 17:59
>>14
just because you don't say just because you can't cut an atom apart and control the explosion doesn't mean its impossible doesn't mean it's not impossible
Seriously. Just because dividing by three doesn't work out perfectly in the base we've all decided is the one we're going to use does NOT by any means indicate that dividing by three is impossible.
I very, very much hope that wasn't a serious post.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-28 20:24
stop basing your decimals on a base-10 system and use base-9 or base-3, that'd work.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-28 20:27
base-9:
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
10
In a base-9 system, a third would equal .3, two thirds, .6, and three thirds, 1, because there'd be no such thing as the digit 9 (which would replace 10). 18 would be the new 20, and so on and so forth.
Name:
Anonymous2006-11-29 23:15
Just write every number in base n where n is the number that you want to represent. Then every number can be accurately represented by 10.
You cant have 3 equal parts of 1<---- object.
You can change your number base to whatever youd like, there are still numbers that will not divide a whole object into equal parts. The sizes of the pieces that cause these impossible numbers will always be the same due to the laws of porportionality.
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-06 17:54
You can't have THREE equal DIvisions of a single object, you would have to use trivision.
Name:
LordRiordan2006-12-06 18:02
Re: 29
Fucking win
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-06 18:33
>>28
You can't divide by 2 in base 3. OH NO THE SKY IS FALLING!!!11
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-06 20:29
>>31
you can't have odd bases in the first place dumbass
Name:
LordRiordan2006-12-06 20:35
Re: 32
HAAHAH another win.
60 base gives you the same issue as well. So does 60 * n
Name:
Anonymous2006-12-06 21:06
To prevent that, you have to include as many prime factors in your base as possible.
This is why I'm working in base infinite. Math becomes so easier with it.