Contradiction would be a better description of infinity. The valuable concept of infinity is dangerous, incomplete, inconsistent and imprecise.

You are right, 0.33333 != 1/3. But 0.333... = 1/3 and 0.999... = 1 I hope that your quantum probability is supposed to be some sort of peculiar joke.

Actually K. Chris is the joke. Keep up your nonsense and she will call you names. What does ⅓ equal, is actually a question debated in the late 1500's when Stevin and others developed decimals system of dealing with fractions. He realised the problems of infinite fractions. He knew for example that the decimal expansion for the fraction ⅓ was infinitely long, he simply said that while it might be MORE CORRECT to say that the full infinite expression was the correct representation, in practice it made little difference if we truncated it. I ask, when should we truncate it, or more to the discussion, does truncation or the full infinite expression actually equal ⅓ or the operation of 1 divided by 3.

@@johnlabonte-ch5ul LOL. You are a troIIing muppet. You've been at this for well over a year, yet you haven't provided a shred of evidence that the mathematicians are wrong. Where did you find that stuff about Stevin. I strongly suspect that it only exists in your fantasy world. Even if what you claim is true (which I doubt as you habitually Iie), it doesn't affect the fact that 0.333... is exactly equal to 1/3 and that Stevin would have been being overcautious. Your last question is hilariously idiotic. Any truncation of 0.333... results in a quantity less than 1/3. It also results in a quantity less that 0.333..., you muppet. You should only truncate because you are forced to because, for example, a computer cannot store infinitely many digits, nor can you literally print infinitely many digits. i.e. you only should truncate for practical reasons. That's common sense, and that is something that you don't have at all.

I said that before, many years ago. Now I want to know why.

​@@johnlabonte-ch5ul Liar. You only want to troII.

LOL. So why are you here posting about it? 0.333... = 1/3 exactly. How is that a failure?

huh?

So which hands/fingers did you lose or not grow in the first place?

what is a fornger

@williamkeitaro8910 Base (number) should be divisible by the first "prime numbers" at least - 1,2,3,4,5. Base 60 does that, covering even 6 (for Babylonians). We chose 10 because we can use the ten fingers as abacus. Ancient Indians use Alphabet-based "katapaya" paddhati (method). Aryabhatta (the ancient Indian Mathematician-Astronomer) whose treatise was taught in traditional Indian schools till the early last century, used it. Our Epic Mahabharata (the longest story or book in verses ever written by man) as we know, was called "jaya" which means "the 18 books" (has18 chapters), ja=8, ya=1, as numbers are written in reverse order (LSB to the right)

@Joker-fj8hg The number "e" isn't transcendental, but "real". his (e) as well as π & φ can b used. Particularly φ (magic number) is very amenable or popular, as higher powers of it (φⁿ), can be reduced expressions with φ. Further, it is easier to imagine √2 as the geometric mean of 1, 2; similarly for √10.

@ en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transcendental_number

@@Joker-fj8hg Thank you. I stand corrected.

9/7? What does 9/7 mean?

did you mean 220/21? 100 in ternary is 9 in decimal, not 24

@@ziggyzoggin sorry math error I thought there was 27 hours in a day and forgot that the first digit is 1 not the base number

@@samberg3864 oop sorry its supposed to be 24

The response video stating that binary is the best is a better video imo

To be clear IntegerPart[0.999...] = 1

In math, there is only one exception in base 10 notation of integers, that infinite 0s follow the decimal point. Note that math says that ".99..."=1.000... but 1.00..1 |=1 where 1.00..1 is finite Of course the difference is infinite. Infinity is dangerous, incomplete, inconsistent and imprecise.

@@johnlabonte-ch5ul You forgot to take your meds again.

@ that's why 0.999... is not the real number whose integer part is 0 and whose fractional part an infinity of 9s

Eh, it's a matter of practice

same

It's the easier way to calculate expoents, 10 to the power of X is just 1 followed by X zeros, so is better than any other number (bases 1 and 0 aren't possible systems)

​@GustavoOMestre how isn't base 1 possible? Wouldn't each place just be 1 more (1 would just be 1, 2 would be 11, and so on)?

​​@@GustavoOMestre That works is any base system, 10 always equals the number of the base. 10 in base x=x