realitista@lemmy.world to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world · 4 months agoNon-binarylemmy.worldimagemessage-square196fedilinkarrow-up10arrow-down10
arrow-up10arrow-down1imageNon-binarylemmy.worldrealitista@lemmy.world to Lemmy Shitpost@lemmy.world · 4 months agomessage-square196fedilink
minus-squareVerat@sh.itjust.workslinkfedilinkarrow-up0·edit-24 months agoIn that case decimal is flawed too, 0.6667 or any such approxination doesnt exactly equal 2/3. It technically happens in any number system where you are dividing by a prime that isnt part of either the base or the number being divided
minus-squareZILtoid1991@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·4 months agoCounterpoint 1: 0.6̇ (Unicode does not support numbers with overdots correctly) Counterpoint 2: 2/3
minus-squareNeatNit@discuss.tchncs.delinkfedilinkarrow-up0·4 months agoIt won’t work with irrational numbers, or transcendental numbers even if you allow things like √2. But honestly I have no idea what the point of this conversation even is
minus-squarebequirtle@lemmy.worldlinkfedilinkarrow-up0·edit-24 months agoIf fractions and repeating decimals are allowed, then we can also write these in binary
In that case decimal is flawed too, 0.6667 or any such approxination doesnt exactly equal 2/3. It technically happens in any number system where you are dividing by a prime that isnt part of either the base or the number being divided
Counterpoint 1:
0.6̇(Unicode does not support numbers with overdots correctly)Counterpoint 2:
2/3It won’t work with irrational numbers, or transcendental numbers even if you allow things like √2.
But honestly I have no idea what the point of this conversation even is
If fractions and repeating decimals are allowed, then we can also write these in binary