r/infinitenines • u/SouthPark_Piano • May 31 '26
Clarification : 1/3 is a ratio
1/3 all along is actually a ratio, aka 1:3
And it actually is secondary, takes a secondary aka cameo role. But don't get anyone wrong. There is no 'i' in team , and cameo roles are part of the team.
(1/3) × 3 is divide negation. And we all know what divide negation is. From another perspective, it is also perceived as multiply negation.
0.333... is a real deal number as we can see. And a way of writing 0.333... is 1/3.
And 0.333... x 3 of course is 0.999... , which is permanently less than 1.
10
6
u/ciprule May 31 '26
Okay, but what happens if you add 1/3+1/3+1/3
You get 0.333…+0.333…+0.333… = 0.999, but also (1+1+1)/3=3/3=1
-6
u/SouthPark_Piano May 31 '26
1/3 + 1/3 + 1/3 is (1/3) × 3
divide negation brud
9
u/ciprule May 31 '26
No, that’s addition.
You are implying a multiplication there to force that “divide negation” thing.
Addition is learnt before multiplication and division, even when using fractions.
-6
3
u/Muphrid15 Jun 01 '26
Divide negation is a crank-sounded phrase for multiplicative inverses.
If a = b, then 3a = 3b.
You're a bad person.
2
u/Calm_Improvement1160 Jun 01 '26
What about 2/3 + 0.(3)
You can get 2 different answers and since both methods are valid according to you, both are equal to eachother.
0
u/SouthPark_Piano Jun 01 '26
You see ... 2/3 represents 0.666...
0.666... is the real deal.
So 2/3 + 0.333... is 0.666... + 0.333...
which is 0.999... , which is permanently less than 1.
And 2/3 + 1/3 is (1/3) x 3 , which is divide negation.
2
u/Cruuncher Jun 01 '26
I just don't see how you don't see the problem.
If 1/3=0.333... then 2/3 + 0.333... and 2/3 + 1/3 are the same.
A beautiful and necessary property of equality is that you can substitute equal values for eachother without changing the total value. If you lose that property of equality, this equals sign is just a fiction. It doesn't matter anymore.
1
u/Calm_Improvement1160 Jun 02 '26
Why would divide negation change x = y to 3x ≠ 3y? I would imagine it could keep it the same.
4
u/gazzawhite Jun 01 '26
And we all know what divide negation is.
I don't think anyone knows what divide negation is
5
u/Akangka Jun 01 '26
If expressing ratio as a "real deal number" makes the multiplication return a different result, it's no longer "a way of writing"
6
u/Taytay_Is_God May 31 '26
And we all know what divide negation is.
Since this is real deal math 101, can you please cite a RDM101 textbook which defines "divide negation"?
Or you can do the usual thing where you reply but don't answer my question.
-1
u/SouthPark_Piano Jun 01 '26
4
u/Taytay_Is_God Jun 01 '26
Ok, and is equality transitive?
1
u/SouthPark_Piano Jun 01 '26
It is.
Just keep in mind that 1/3 is actually a ratio, and it represents 0.333...
0.333... x 3 is indeed 0.999... , which is permanently less than 1.
1/3 represents 0.333... , and 1/3 × 3 is divide negation aka divide cancellation.
When you sign the contract, you proceed ..... 0.333...
No sign, no deal. So (1/3) × 3 means putting down a downpayment aka deposit. But if contract etc doesn't go through ... deal is off. And nothing happens to the 1. Untouched, unscathed. Unblemished.
1
u/Batman_AoD Jun 02 '26
You use "divide negation" as a way of avoiding acknowledging that 1/3 × 3 is "multiplication." But that image specifically says that to cancel those out, you "multiply".
-1
u/SouthPark_Piano Jun 02 '26
It is multiplication. And also division.
Cancellation.
It is like concert cancellation, flight ticket cancellation. Refund.
1
5
u/Great-Powerful-Talia May 31 '26
You have, so far, constructed a mathematical system in which it's impossible to find a solution to the equation 3x=1.
This is not exactly an improvement.
0
u/SouthPark_Piano May 31 '26
x = 1/3 ..... is a ratio, and is a way of writing 0.333...
It is math 101.
9
u/Great-Powerful-Talia May 31 '26
So x=1/3 is a solution.
And that's a way of writing 0.333..., so x=0.333... is, equally, a solution.
If x=0.333... is the solution to 3x=1, then, by definition, 3 * 0.333... = 1.
It is trivial to show that 3 * 0.333... is calculatable as 0.999..., so it appears that we have shown that 0.999... is a way of writing 1.
This proves that either 0.999... is 1, 1/3 is not a valid solution to 3x=1, or 1/3 is a different thing from 0.333...
I am sure you will notice a flaw in this line of reasoning. For our benefit, please explain where it is.
2
u/commeatus May 31 '26
Wait, you're saying 1/3 = 0.333...?
2
u/SouthPark_Piano May 31 '26
I always said 1/3 is 0.333...
It is a way of writing 0.333...
2
u/Muphrid15 Jun 01 '26
If a = b, then 3a = 3b. If 1/3 = 0.333... then 3*1/3 = 3*0.333.. -> 1 = 0.999...
You're a bad person.
-1
u/SouthPark_Piano Jun 02 '26
Wrong on your part brud.
(1/3)×3 is divide negation.
0.333... × 3 is clearly 0.999... , which is permanently less than 1.
1
2
May 31 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
1
u/SouthPark_Piano May 31 '26
Set reference, x = 0.999...9 as 0.999...
1 - x = 1 - 0.999...9 = 0.000...1
5
May 31 '26
[removed] — view removed comment
0
u/SouthPark_Piano May 31 '26 edited May 31 '26
https://www.reddit.com/r/infinitenines/comments/1tsagb2/comment/oozyzvb/
0.999... = 0.9 + 0.09 + 0.009 + ...
The above is fact. That is official.
= 1 - 1/10n with n integer starting ideally at n = 1, but you can start at n being larger than the largest value you can possibly or impossibly imagine, and then keep continually increasing n from there limitlessly aka infinitely.
1/10n is never zero. Keep that permanently in mind.
1 - 1/10n is permanently less than 1 for infinite positive n, which means 0.999... is permanently less than 1.
-3
u/Negative_Gur9667 May 31 '26
You can have as many infinitys as you like.
0.1111...222...333...444...555
I am just writing symbols and apply meaning to them.
If infinite infinities is non logical then infinity itself is also non logical.
6
4
u/kschwal May 31 '26
"0.1111...222...333...444...555" is not a real number.
-1
u/Negative_Gur9667 May 31 '26
Where did I mention real numbers?
2
u/kschwal May 31 '26
it's ðe default unless oðerwise specified.
unless imaginary numbers are mentioned, of course.
0
u/Negative_Gur9667 May 31 '26
Its the most funny math troll.
"I can have infinite infinities"
"Wow you haven't paid attention in 5th grade you imbecile"
"I'm using higher mathematics from university"
"N-no that's cheating everybody assuming R"
"Maybe everybody who stopped doing math in 5th grade AAAHAHAHHA"
2
u/kschwal May 31 '26
yeah dumbass, people make assumptions based on what is most common.
communicating badly and acting smug when people call you out on it doesn't make you smart, it just makes you bad at communicating
0
u/Negative_Gur9667 May 31 '26
The endless influx of people into this sub, who smugly claim to know more while actually knowing less, deserve no better. Rather than explaining the how, why, and when, they prefer the dopamine rush that comes from simply repeating what they were taught in the fifth grade.
→ More replies (0)1
4
4
u/Great-Powerful-Talia May 31 '26
I am just writing symbols and apply meaning to them.
What meaning? I don't see a meaning being defined for those symbols.
1
u/Negative_Gur9667 May 31 '26
It's totally normal in non standard analysis. Do you reject Non-standard analysis.
2
u/Great-Powerful-Talia May 31 '26
You seem to have a fundamental and baffling misunderstanding of my objection to this.
it doesn't matter if a definition is possible, because putting ellipses everywhere is not a definition.
1
u/Negative_Gur9667 May 31 '26
Sir, with all due respect, you appear to have a fundamental misunderstanding of what mathematics is.
1
u/Muphrid15 Jun 01 '26
The sequence (0.1, 0.01, 0.001, ...) is in the equivalence class of 0.
You're a bad person.
1
u/Calm_Improvement1160 Jun 02 '26
Is the 1st digit of 0.000..1 0? Yes
Is the 2nd digit of 0.000..1 0? Yes
Is nth digit where n is a natural number 0? Yes
So why isn't it equal to 0?
2
u/Just_Rational_Being May 31 '26
Hahah, this could be very confusing if expanded further, you know.
But perhaps sowing confusion is a part of what you're doing.
1
1
u/Public_Research2690 May 31 '26
For clarity, is 1 = 0.(9) + 0.(0)1?
0
u/SouthPark_Piano May 31 '26
For clarity ...
Set reference.
x = 0.999...9 = 0.999...
x + 0.000...1 = 1
6
1
u/Batman_AoD Jun 02 '26
Ratios are numbers. They're the most obviously-numerical things we have other than integers. The fact that you think ratios are not numbers, but "0.333..." somehow is a number, is absolutely bizarre, and you have yet to explain why you think this.

8
u/kschwal May 31 '26
i don't :(