Viewing a single comment thread. View all comments

eegocentrik t1_j28l9tj wrote

Disagree.

Fractions are portions of numbers, not new numbers themselves.

1 pie, cut in half does not yield 2 pies.

It yields 2 portions of the same pie. This does not create a new pie.

−29

xSteee t1_j28mwko wrote

Are you saying that 0.1 and 0.2 are not different numbers?

13

eegocentrik t1_j28t507 wrote

I'm saying they are two different quotients of the same number.

−11

eegocentrik t1_j28nbj6 wrote

Nope portion of the same number, the number 1.

−24

xSteee t1_j28nh6u wrote

0.1 is 1/10, a portion out of 10 of 1. 0.2 is 2/10, two portion out of 10 of 1. 0.1 and 0.2 are two different number.

Or am I misinterpreting something?

3

eegocentrik t1_j28nwgv wrote

A piece cut into ten pieces.

.1 is one PIECE of the original pie, not an entirely new pie.m.1 describes the piece, not the pie.

You could have .9 grams of the .1 piece, still not a new pie. There are no new numbers created by dividing the unit.

−7

xSteee t1_j28o5od wrote

As someone said, numbers are not pies. It's like you are trying to demolish hundreds of years of maths by saying that fractions are not different numbers ahah

6

eegocentrik t1_j28ocaf wrote

Define fraction.

−2

xSteee t1_j28ou9b wrote

Fractions are another way to represent finite and infinite decimal numbers

4

eegocentrik t1_j28p4xp wrote

Not a definition.

Please define fraction.

−2

xSteee t1_j28pjie wrote

A fraction is a numeral which represent a rational number. It is composed by a numerator and a denominator.

5

eegocentrik t1_j28qg64 wrote

Definition:

fraction, In arithmetic, a number expressed as a quotient, in which a numerator is divided by a denominator.

The original number being expressed as a quotient. Fractions are quotients of the original number but not new numbers in themselves.

0

xSteee t1_j28qy78 wrote

So 1/4, or 0.25, is not different from 3/4, or 0.75? Or are you saying that 0.25 and 0.75 are not numbers at all?

2

eegocentrik t1_j28s8lc wrote

.25 and .75 are quotients of 1 and not independently new numbers.

1/4 == .25

1

xSteee t1_j28sm8e wrote

Does it extends to number above 1? 2.25 and 2.75 are not different number?

1

eegocentrik t1_j28u8wa wrote

Sure.

The .25 in 2.25 is the quotient of from 2 to 3 (1). 2+.25

Also, 2.25 is the quotient of 45 ÷ 2 or 45/2.

However, the OP said from 0 to 1, this is where my argument lies.

There are NOT the same amount of numbers from 0 to 1 as there are 0 to infinity.

There ARE the same number of ELEMENTS.

1

xSteee t1_j28vjyh wrote

And the elements of a set of number ("all the numbers between 0 and 1" is a set of numbers, right?) are called...?

2

eegocentrik t1_j28vo6x wrote

Quotients.

1

xSteee t1_j28vv0o wrote

And a quotient, by definition, is "the number we obtain by dividing a number by another"

2

eegocentrik t1_j28wc0a wrote

It's not a new number. It's a fractional representation of the numerator and does not exist outside of it.

There are not infinite NUMBERS between 0 and 1 only elements.

0

xSteee t1_j28xebs wrote

Have you ever heard of real numbers? Irrational numbers?

4

eegocentrik t1_j28xw3p wrote

Yes, irrational numbers do not apply here.

This is not a math issue, this is a semantic issue.

Fractions are quotients of rational numbers.

1 is the smallest unit of count.

Half of 1 can be represented by the quotients 1/2 or .5

Half of one can also be expressed as 2 new things that are not 1.

0

xSteee t1_j290guf wrote

And we, as as species, for hundreds of years have decided to call them number too, so 0.5 is a number

3

Nilonik t1_j28p48j wrote

A fraction is a number which can be written as a/b, where a and b are integers, while b is unequal to zero.

3

eegocentrik t1_j28pvt0 wrote

And b. is the number, and a. is its fraction.

a. cannot be a unit of its own and does not exist without b. in this example.

0

lt_Matthew t1_j28omf9 wrote

So if someone says they're eating pie, you correct them and say it's 'a piece of pie'?

3

eegocentrik t1_j28phh8 wrote

Only if they are counting it while they eat it.

Do you say that you plated 8 pies for dessert?

Or are there 8 pieces of pie on the counter?

0

liarandathief t1_j28qmgj wrote

We're upping your tax rate to .99, don't worry, it's basically the same thing.

3

symmetra__main t1_j28ydqz wrote

Numbers do not have to be integers to be numbers.

3

eegocentrik t1_j28ytru wrote

I didn't say that.

I said there are no numbers between 0 and 1, only quotients (Elements)

−2

imregrettingthis t1_j28nh4q wrote

Numbers are not pies and it doesn’t work that way.

5

M8dude t1_j28un4y wrote

yet pi is a number.

checkmate, atheists.

5

eegocentrik t1_j28nyx6 wrote

Numbers are constructs and don't really exist, and yes it does.

−2

imregrettingthis t1_j28onbx wrote

Lol. Exactly!

Numbers are a construct and now you’re trying to define them in some real world way like pies. Thanks for helping me prove my point while trying to prove yours I guess.

If you keep wanting to disagree I obviously won’t mind since you’re actually just agreeing but feel free to look up this very established and agreed on mathematical concept that is again... agreed on by humans... the people that constructed it. As you so helpfully pointed out.

4

eegocentrik t1_j28p72x wrote

Pies are constructs.

−1

imregrettingthis t1_j28pdg6 wrote

Pies are pies my friend. You were so close. Do you have a math teacher who can explain this? Or Google?

3

eegocentrik t1_j28pp5a wrote

Please provide to me a source explaining that fraction are new individual numbers separate from their whole.

−2

imregrettingthis t1_j28q9f7 wrote

A pie is 1 pie. A half a pie is a either .5 a pie or 1 half pie. It’s arbitrary. The only difference is representation. You nailed it at the beginning. Math is a construct. I’m only smart enough to understand this not explain it well perhaps since I didn’t look up a more educated way to reply.

2

eegocentrik t1_j28qmr4 wrote

.5 represents the PIECE.

I nailed this in every comment.

−2

imregrettingthis t1_j28qxp2 wrote

To you. That’s arbitrary. Again. This shower thought isn’t a shower thought but an incredibly established mathematical concept.

If you want to be a smug ass and think you have nailed it go on. But according to all mathematicians on earth you are wrong and this shower thought is right.

If you want to disagree you might as well be a flat earther.

Again feel free to completely disregard me and look it up.

3

eegocentrik t1_j28slb5 wrote

To you.

Again you're arguing on shower thoughts, and if you want to be an incorrect smug ass while doing so that's your right.

Again feel free to provide your source as I have looked it up and I am still representing the concept accurately.

Please provide evidence for you claim

Strawman, equivocation fallacy.

0

imregrettingthis t1_j28t4vi wrote

not to me. to everyone on earth.

​

my source is actually just my basic high school level education. but if you need a different one.

https://www.cantorsparadise.com/number-of-numbers-infinite-weirdness-9387faa58368

here is a link. let me know if you want thousands more. or just google it.. or ask anyone with a brain.

2

eegocentrik t1_j28tjlz wrote

From youur source:

An infinite set (e.g. integers) and an infinite proper subset of the set (e.g. natural numbers) can have the same number of elements. In fact, all the following infinite sets have the same number of elements: natural numbers, whole numbers, integers, even numbers, odd numbers, prime numbers, etc."

Elements, not numbers.

There are the same number of elements between 0 and 1 and 0 and infinity, not NUMBERS.

0

imregrettingthis t1_j28u9gn wrote

again you could just google this. I am done, please feel free to leave this convo thinking you are right. you should even tell a bunch of people about how big an idiot I am... please also tell them about this concept and why I am a moron.

2

eegocentrik t1_j28urvo wrote

Your Google search didn't work.

Your evidence failed.

Thank you for finally agreeing with me.

Sometimes you just need to check it out for yourself and learn something new.

So don't think that you are a moron or an idiot. We all start from scratch.

1

imregrettingthis t1_j28vg2d wrote

sure, as I said please tell everyone about this concept and your point of view.

2

M8dude t1_j2a5nap wrote

any element of a set of numbers is a number.

of course, how would you know, never having heard of set theory.

1

SaraF_Arts t1_j29eyat wrote

So, let's make an example here. I have a nice picture on my phone, but I want it to be a quater size smaller. What do I do? Multiply the pictures' dimensions for a "piece" of 0.5 each. What do I get at the end? A "piece" of the picture"? No, the SAME picture, but... Oh my god, SMALLER!

From your science perspective how do you explain that a "full" times a "piece" makes a smaller full and not a piece?

(Also, obv you study business, no brains to be found there)

1

liarandathief t1_j28qsw9 wrote

Define number

2

eegocentrik t1_j28t06q wrote

A number is an arithmetic value used to represent quantity, fractions are quotients of theses quantities.

0

M8dude t1_j28wbfx wrote

you're thinking of natural numbers.

fractions of natural numbers are still numbers, as anyone who knows any actual maths will confirm.

2

eegocentrik t1_j28x6o7 wrote

Nope.

The numbers from 0 to 1 are elements of 1, quotients, not numbers.

Does this contradictory statement make more sense to you?

0

M8dude t1_j2902dz wrote

no.

you're making your own definitions, which is fine, but there are conventional definitions for these things in maths already, and (almost) everyone uses those.

2

eegocentrik t1_j290ffx wrote

Look up the definition of mathematical fraction.

0

M8dude t1_j2927ms wrote

Look up the definition of 'Number'.

here, i'll help you:

> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Number

and if that's too difficult, here's the relevant part:

> In mathematics, the notion of a number has been extended over the centuries to include zero (0), negative numbers, rational numbers such as one half ...

1

yellowistherainbow t1_j28lhha wrote

Maybe digits is a better word

1

Zeelacious t1_j28mbew wrote

No because an infinite fraction of one whole is just 1/10th of infinity. For every number of infinity there is an equal infinite fraction of zero to one.

1

M8dude t1_j28tkip wrote

yeah clearly the set of rational numbers consists of almost no numbers. /s

1