Motor Daddy
Valued Senior Member
You crack me up man, you really do.
Since you read that thread on mathforums, did you read my psych-eval of that poster? LOL
Do you need me to do a psych-eval on you?
You crack me up man, you really do.
I made one personal pan pizza, then cut it into 3 equal slices. So I guess that means I did not have 100% of a pizza anymore. These are the things we can all learn from MD.
Long division for \(1/10_3\)? Seriously? Oooookaaaay.
$$\begin{array}{r}
0.1\phantom{)} \\
10{\overline{\smash{\big)}\,1.0\phantom{)}}}\\
\underline{-~\phantom{(}\,0\phantom{.0)}}\\
1.0\phantom{)}\\
\underline{-~\phantom{()}1.0\phantom{)}}\\
0\phantom{)}
\end{array}$$
I don't usually follow hopeless threads like this but I noticed your post. Neat! As a programmer, I immediately thought, maybe I could avoid build up of rounding errors in my calculations if I tried it. But I would have to constantly change the base of the number system. Not practical.
Now you are trying to pocket some change. You sneaky bastard you!
And did you see the code Ssssssssss used to post the base 3 long division? What kind of sorcery is that? Very impressive all around.
I only paid 99.999...% of the price for the pizza, so I came out even!
I see Motor Daddy's now integrated different bases into his nonsense despite apparently being utterly ignorant of the concept two hours earlier so I'm going with sophisticated troll. So I'm leaving well alone now.I really can't tell if this is all for real or just some elaborate wind-up.
Switching bases for this purpose is a sneaky way of using boring old fractions and I've seen fraction classes implemented with all the associated mathematical operators but they're a pretty niche subject. Stuff like symbolic algebra packages use them for example I'm pretty sure SymPy has one. For most practical purposes it isn't worth the performance hit of constantly checking if you can cancel stuff and it can't express irrationals exactly anyway so you end up having to use some finite precision stuff somewhere if you can't just leave things as symbols which scare and confuse people like Motor Daddy.I don't usually follow hopeless threads like this but I noticed your post. Neat! As a programmer, I immediately thought, maybe I could avoid build up of rounding errors in my calculations if I tried it. But I would have to constantly change the base of the number system. Not practical.
Google.What kind of sorcery is that?
The latter. Definitely.I see this thread has taken a belly-flop into the deep-end of the bizarre. I really can't tell if this is all for real or just some elaborate wind-up.
I see Motor Daddy's now integrated different bases into his nonsense despite apparently being utterly ignorant of the concept two hours earlier so I'm going with sophisticated troll. So I'm leaving well alone now.
To Motor Daddy pointDo you not know what a square unit of area is? 3 square inches is an area, regardless of the shape of that area.
So just go and make 3 square inches into a circle
Reverse the process and vola you have squared the circle
To Motor Daddy point
regardless of the shape of that area
and my follow up reply
* go and make 3 square inches into a circle
* Reverse the process and vola you have squared the circle [
This process works? yes no
If the radius of a circle is 5 units, then the area of the circle is 3.14159(5x5)= 78.53975 square inches of area.
So now you need a square with side length of the square root of 78.53975, or a square with sides of 8.8622
So if you make a circle of any size and claim the radius of that circle to be 5 units, then you have to have a square with sides that are 1.77245310 times longer than the radius of the circle.
Regardless of the numbers, the square's side length needs to be 1.77245310 times longer than the circle's radius.
My square's side length is 1.777... times longer than the circle's radius.
It is accurate to 2 decimal places, 1.77... which is CLOSE ENOUGH! It is DAMN CLOSE! It is within .005 units. It is only 5 parts of 1,000 parts too long. That is CLOSE ENOUGH!
You can't make it perfect because there is no finite pi, therefore no finite circle area, therefore no finite square side length.
Had no doubt you would agree it works at the level of CLOSE ENOUGH
Waiting to see if others agree CLOSE ENOUGH is GOOD ENOUGH
That's roughly 0.3% out, then? 0.3% bigger, in fact. That, according to you in another thread, makes it "much" bigger, and therefore can not be considered "close enough". So hoisted by your own petard, methinks.It is accurate to 2 decimal places, 1.77... which is CLOSE ENOUGH! It is DAMN CLOSE! It is within .005 units. It is only 5 parts of 1,000 parts too long. That is CLOSE ENOUGH!