• pyre@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    5
    ·
    4 months ago

    .333… is rational.

    at least we finally found your problem: you don’t know what rational and irrational mean. the clue is in the name.

    • Klear@sh.itjust.works
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      TBH the name is a bit misleading. Same for “real” numbers. And oh so much more so for “normal numbers”.

      • pyre@lemmy.world
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        3
        ·
        4 months ago

        not really. i get it because we use rational to mean logical, but that’s not what it means here. yeah, real and normal are stupid names but rational numbers are numbers that can be represented as a ratio of two numbers. i think it’s pretty good.

        • Klear@sh.itjust.works
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          4 months ago

          I know all of that, but it’s still misleading. It’s not a dumb name by any means, but it still causes confusion often (as evidenced by many comments here)

          • pyre@lemmy.world
            link
            fedilink
            English
            arrow-up
            3
            ·
            4 months ago

            fair enough, but i think the confusion for that commenter comes from a misunderstanding of the definition of the mathematical concept rather than the meaning of the English word. they just think irrational numbers are those that have infinite decimal digits, which is not the definition.