Communities

Writing
Writing
Codidact Meta
Codidact Meta
The Great Outdoors
The Great Outdoors
Photography & Video
Photography & Video
Scientific Speculation
Scientific Speculation
Cooking
Cooking
Electrical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Judaism
Judaism
Languages & Linguistics
Languages & Linguistics
Software Development
Software Development
Mathematics
Mathematics
Christianity
Christianity
Code Golf
Code Golf
Music
Music
Physics
Physics
Linux Systems
Linux Systems
Power Users
Power Users
Tabletop RPGs
Tabletop RPGs
tag:snake search within a tag
answers:0 unanswered questions
user:xxxx search by author id
score:0.5 posts with 0.5+ score
"snake oil" exact phrase
votes:4 posts with 4+ votes
created:<1w created < 1 week ago
post_type:xxxx type of post
Search help
Notifications
Mark all as read See all your notifications »
Q&A

How can 3/1 ≡ 1/(1/3), when left side features merely integers, but right side features a repetend?

+0
−10

On one hand, I know that algebraically, $\dfrac{3}1 ≡ \dfrac{1}{\color{red}{1/3}}$.

On the other hand, they differ in practice, not least because $\color{red}{1/3}$ contains 3 as the repetend. For example, if a scrap of physical material must have a 3:1 ratio and a length of 3 m, then I shall make the width 1 m.

But presuppose a length of 1 m. Then a 3:1 ratio is impossible to accomplish, because it would require a width of $\color{red}{1/3=0.\overline{3}}$. But it's impossible to measure and cut anything physical at a repetend!

Doesn't this physical impossibility due to the reptend belie, or undermine, the theoretical "equality" that $\dfrac{3}1 ≡ \dfrac{1}{\color{red}{1/3}}$? How can this physical impossibility due to the repetend be reconciled with equality?

Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.
Why should this post be closed?

1 comment thread

The existence of a repetend depends on the base (1 comment)

2 answers

+4
−0

Your equations express rational numbers, and are correct.

Just because in some numbering systems some of these rational numbers can't be represented with finite notation doesn't in any way invalidate the equations.

Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

0 comment threads

+4
−0

... it's impossible to measure and cut anything physical at a repetend.

This is incorrect. Given a segment with $1$ unit length, one can easily construct, "physically", a segment with a length of $1/3$ units. In fact, given any line segment, there are many ways to trisect it. See for instance this article or this YouTube video. See also this Wikipedia article on $\sqrt{2}$; one can even get a line segment with the length of an irrational number!

Your confusion essentially boils down to why $0.\overline{9}=1$. Notice that on the right you have the integer $1$, while on the left, you have a repeating decimal which continues infinitely.

Why does this post require moderator attention?
You might want to add some details to your flag.

0 comment threads

Sign up to answer this question »