• themeatbridge@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    2
    ·
    7 days ago

    But you could make that same argument for a lot of fractions. 1/3 doesn’t exist because you cannot divide a quantum in three. 0.333 repeating means that eventually you have to divide an indivisible foundational particle in thirds.

    • barsoap@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      6 days ago

      You can divide a thing made up of any multiple of 3 number of things into three. Say, divide twelve eggs by three that’s four eggs, rational division is justified by “I could have multiplied some numbers beforehand so now I can divide”, it’s the inverse of multiplication, after all.

      But that only applies to rationals: The issue is that there’s no integer you could multiply pi with that would result in an integer… otherwise pi would be a rational number which it isn’t.

    • rbits@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      3
      ·
      7 days ago

      If you have three particles, 1/3 of that is one particle. No need to divide an indivisible particle.

        • rbits@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          7 days ago

          Right, but you can have exactly a third of some group of particles. You can’t have exactly pi of some group of particles I think is what they were saying

    • mexicancartel@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      edit-2
      7 days ago

      The other guy said good about one out of three known particles. That’s what make it rational!

      The problem is that something that doesn’t exist in our universe or reality doesn’t disprove anything in mathematics. Mathematics is abstract. It is rules built up on rules. It does not care about reality or anything