Originally posted by wolfgang59But you quoted my latest posting...?
Ok
I was talking about the ORIGINAL question ...
I thought you were questioning my dimissal of Tournymanagers 'proof' which is of course invalid as a proof although obviously true.
Anyway, the prof of mine, of ours, I've tried that on a 15 year old and he understood it perfectly. The only thing that he had to grasp was the meaning of the trippledot as a sign of repetition.
Originally posted by wolfgang59Done so since the ancient times of the greeks.
OK. Prove the algorithm!
My point was you cannot assume another anything until proven.
If you don't know the euclidian division algoritm, or never performed it yourself, I can understand that you have to ask the question. Else it is obvious when you do.
It's all about repetition. 10/3 gives 3 reminder 1, again again again, with no end. Therfore 1/3 gives only 3's as decimals with no end.
1/3 = 0.33333333....
Originally posted by smw6869how about this to prove 1=0
Anyone know how to prove this to be true(even though it's not). A math teacher proved it to my math class. Everything made sense and no one could find the falacy.
0= 0 + 0 + 0 + . . .
0= (1 - 1) + (1 - 1) + (1 - 1) + . . .
0= 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + . . .
0= 1 + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) + . . .
0= 1 + 0 + 0 + 0 + . . .= 1
Originally posted by FabianFnasDear Fabian, I have never experienced the euclidial division algorithm position. How many repititions? Over and over again? For how long? Gracious sakes, i must change my diapers. Later, king of the 50's rock and roll era.
Done so since the ancient times of the greeks.
If you don't know the euclidian division algoritm, or never performed it yourself, I can understand that you have to ask the question. Else it is obvious when you do.
It's all about repetition. 10/3 gives 3 reminder 1, again again again, with no end. Therfore 1/3 gives only 3's as decimals with no end.
1/3 = 0.33333333....
Granny.
Originally posted by ArachnarchistYou snuck in an extra +1 in the fourth step without including it's partner -1. This is incorrect.
how about this to prove 1=0
0= 0 + 0 + 0 + . . .
0= (1 - 1) + (1 - 1) + (1 - 1) + . . .
0= 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + 1 - 1 + . . .
0= 1 + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) + (-1 + 1) + . . .
0= 1 + 0 + 0 + 0 + . . .= 1