How is 33.33 13 of 100? : Othor Games

» Tue Aug 14, 2012 3:57 pm

If you do the math, 33.33 times 3 is 99.99 which is Not 100. Can someone explain this sorcery? My best guess is the Illuminati...

» Wed Aug 15, 2012 12:32 am

33.33333... (repeated) is 1/3 of 100. The decimal doesn't end at two 3's, they continue infinitely, as far as I remember.

» Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:48 pm

33.33333... (repeated) is 1/3 of 100. The decimal doesn't end at two 3's, they continue infinitely, as far as I remember.

How? No matter how far it goes it will always end in a .9.

» Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:31 pm

well we could all take it literally and stand around adding an infinite amount of .333333-etc. to the end of something when we wan't to call it 1/3. or we can just round up a slight amount and continue on with our daily life.

» Wed Aug 15, 2012 12:23 am

How? No matter how far it goes it will always end in a .9.

But if that goes for infinity, than the difference between 99.99(repeating) and 100 is literally unmeasurable.

» Tue Aug 14, 2012 11:26 am

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ConMan/Proof_that_0.999..._does_not_equal_1

Edit: I don't know math but I know how to google

» Tue Aug 14, 2012 7:39 pm

If you use 33.34, it's not one third either. Neither is 33.333334. Ending it with a 4 is always too big, and with a 3 is always too small. It goes on infinitely, which is tiresome to write out on math homework, so we either just state fractions (1/3), or if writing it as numbers, just keep rounding it down. 3 or 4, it always rounds down to a .3, so that's what it's represented with.

» Tue Aug 14, 2012 6:27 pm

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:ConMan/Proof_that_0.999..._does_not_equal_1

Edit: I don't know math but I know how to google :tongue:

Thanks for the headache...

» Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:08 pm

It's called rounding to a non-infinite number.

If you want confusion, try working with multiple infinites of varying sizes.

» Tue Aug 14, 2012 5:59 pm

I forget what its called, but there is some math proof that 0.999* = 1.0

Hence, 99.999* = 100.0

Its a trick to do with infinity.

In the case of computers, numbers cannot be infinite, so repeating decimal numbers like 1/3 are calculated by using a rounded value that is rounded far enough along that it doesn't matter. Its the same thing as Pi, nobody can calculate it's full length (since its infinitely long) so they just use a version of it that is accurate enough for whatever the calculation is.

» Tue Aug 14, 2012 1:31 pm

For any two distinct real numbers, there are an infinite amount of real numbers between them (between 1 and 2 you have 1.5. 1.55. 1.555 etc on for infinity, and then between each of those there is another infinite number of numbers)

There is no number between 99.999... and 100, therefore 99.999... = 100

It's just a flaw in base-10 math. If it bothers you, you can always switch to a different base numbering system that doesn't have the problem *though it'll have a different one probably)

» Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:58 am

Due to how the decimal works.. People normally says 33.34 is 1/3 of 100 which still isn't really true.. I prefer to say 33-1/3 or 33.33-1/3.

33-1/3 x 3 = 100. 33.33-1/3 x 3 = 100.. Basicly, when you times the 1/3 by 3, it'll add an extra 1 to the last number which then bring it up to 100.
(33x3 + 1/3x3)
(99 + 1)
(100).

Basicly, I think 33-1/3 would be best thing to say..(0.33-1/3 if out of 1)

(0.33x3 + 0.00-1/3x3)
(0.99 + 0.01)
(1)

» Tue Aug 14, 2012 11:04 pm

Just bust out the long division like we did in grade school. Divide 100 by 3 and see what you get, I'll wait

» Tue Aug 14, 2012 3:45 pm

Humans can comprehend an infinite number of 3's after a decimal, and how that comes to 1/3, unless they choose not to. As da mage pointed out, computers don't have that choice. You really are more clever than your school calculator. Don't choose to 'think' like it.

» Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:32 pm

Just bust out the long division like we did in grade school. Divide 100 by 3 and see what you get, I'll wait :smile:

According to Calculatorforfree.com it equals....33.333333333333336...What?

» Tue Aug 14, 2012 7:32 pm

Mathematics!

» Tue Aug 14, 2012 8:06 pm

Guuuuuh my head. 0_o

» Wed Aug 15, 2012 12:53 am

This forums requires that you be 13 or older to join. Thus there is no excuse for you not knowing the answer to this.

» Tue Aug 14, 2012 9:52 am

Unless you're terrible a math. Alot people here are terrible at history. Or maybe our schools are terrible at history.

QUICK, who was the leader of the French Revolution? (1789)

» Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:27 pm

Robespierre.

» Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:36 pm

Unless you're terrible a math. Alot people here are terrible at history. Or maybe our schools are terrible at history.

QUICK, who was the leader of the French Revolution? (1789)

~~Imma guess Robespierre and since I didn't double check with Google, I'm risking an epic fail.~~ Anyway all we're taught here is Canadian history. :dry:

^^Never mind he beat me to it. If it's wrong the epic fail is on him. :happy:

» Tue Aug 14, 2012 5:35 pm

For any two distinct real numbers, there are an infinite amount of real numbers between them (between 1 and 2 you have 1.5. 1.55. 1.555 etc on for infinity, and then between each of those there is another infinite number of numbers)

There is no number between 99.999... and 100, therefore 99.999... = 100

More or less this.

Here's another way to look at it. Consider the infinite sequence S1 = (1 - 0.1) = 0.9, S2 = (1 - 0.01) = .99, S3 = (1 - 0.001) = .999, ..., Sn = (1 - (1/(10^n))). As n gets increasingly large, Sn gets closer to 1. Now pick an arbitrary number E, some number that you think is as close to 1 as you can get. Notice that you can easily make (1 - Sn) be smaller than (1 - E), for some n.

Basically, the point here is that Sn can get as close as you like to 1. The limit of Sn is 1. But .99999... just is the limit of Sn (by definition).

» Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:37 pm

Imma guess Robespierre and since I didn't double check with Google, I'm risking an epic fail. Anyway all we're taught here is Canadian history. :dry:

I got backup.

Robespierre 1789, Napoleon Bonaparte led the next revolution.

» Tue Aug 14, 2012 10:31 pm

~~Imma guess Robespierre and since I didn't double check with Google, I'm risking an epic fail.~~ Anyway all we're taught here is Canadian history. :dry:

^^Never mind he beat me to it. If it's wrong the epic fail is on him. :happy:

It's kinda Robespierre.

It's really a trick question because there wasn't really a centralized leader - rather a Committee. Robespierre joined after and became prominent.

There was no next Revolution. He declared himself Emperor and attempted to destroy the Republic - ultimately he was against the Revolution. He was as worthless politically as Louis XVI

» Tue Aug 14, 2012 2:32 pm

It's kinda Robespierre.

It's really a trick question because there wasn't really a centralized leader - rather a Committee. Robespierre joined after and became prominent.

There was no next Revolution. He declared himself Emperor and attempted to destroy the Republic - ultimately he was against the Revolution. He was as worthless politically as Louis XVI

Well, when I say revolution, I really meant a military coup.

And Robespierre was the only real leader. Until he started the Terror that is...

Then he was killed, and there was no leader...

And then came Napoleon...