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
Community Proposals
Community Proposals
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

Post History

#2: Post edited by user avatar Chgg Clou‭ · 2022-10-09T00:25:15Z (over 1 year ago)
  • 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 I need a physical scrap of material to have a 3:1 ratio but have a length of 3 m, then I can fulfill this requirement by making the width 1 m.
  • But presuppose a length of 1 m. Then a 3:1 ratio is impossible to accomplish, because a 3:1 ratio would require a width of $\color{red}{1/3=0.\overline{3}}$. But it's impossible to measure and cut anything physical at a repeating decimal!
  • 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?
  • ![](https://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/images/ratio-3-1b.svg)
  • 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?
  • ![](https://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/images/ratio-3-1b.svg)
#1: Initial revision by user avatar Chgg Clou‭ · 2022-10-09T00:23:58Z (over 1 year ago)
How can 3/1 ≡ 1/(1/3), when left side features merely integers, but right side features a repetend? 
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 I need a physical scrap of material to have a 3:1 ratio but have a length of 3 m, then I can fulfill this requirement by making the width 1 m.

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

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?




![](https://www.mathsisfun.com/numbers/images/ratio-3-1b.svg)