The Naked Scientists
  • Login
  • Register
  • Podcasts
      • The Naked Scientists
      • eLife
      • Naked Genetics
      • Naked Astronomy
      • In short
      • Naked Neuroscience
      • Ask! The Naked Scientists
      • Question of the Week
      • Archive
      • Video
      • SUBSCRIBE to our Podcasts
  • Articles
      • Science News
      • Features
      • Interviews
      • Answers to Science Questions
  • Get Naked
      • Donate
      • Do an Experiment
      • Science Forum
      • Ask a Question
  • About
      • Meet the team
      • Our Sponsors
      • Site Map
      • Contact us

User menu

  • Login
  • Register
  • Home
  • Help
  • Search
  • Tags
  • Recent Topics
  • Login
  • Register
  1. Naked Science Forum
  2. On the Lighter Side
  3. New Theories
  4. My 'Calculator Discovery' (and Theory).
« previous next »
  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Down

My 'Calculator Discovery' (and Theory).

  • 0 Replies
  • 2807 Views
  • 0 Tags

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline Jimbee (OP)

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • 243
  • Activity:
    2.5%
  • Thanked: 21 times
My 'Calculator Discovery' (and Theory).
« on: 25/01/2015 02:58:56 »
I think I may have come upon a new discovery in mathematics (do we still make "discoveries" in math?). But first some background.

Anyways, I play around a lot with calculators. And I'm not ashamed to admit it either. You know you can learn a lot that way, believe it or not. And I have even shared some of these things with others on the internet in the past.

This next one is equally as bizarre as the rest. When you take the square root of .111111.... you get .3333333... naturally, since the square root of one-ninth is one-third. But one time, just as a lark, I thought I'd square root .11 alone. Then .111 (again, only three digits), etc.. Long story short, you get the following pattern: 0.33333333331666666666624999999998. As you can see, the .33333... pattern is followed by an intrusive 1666666... pattern, and a 2499999... pattern (leading ultimately to 25, presumably).

It happens with other numbers too. Take .44444... The square root of this repeating decimal is .66666..., two-thirds, naturally. But when you do the same thing, you get 0.66666666663333333333249999999996. A "333..." pattern emerges, and then again that "25" pattern.

It doesn't just happen with these. Consider .9999... That equals one, of course. But when you do the same, you get 0.99999999994999999999874999999994. Now, you get "5" and "75" as your hidden pattern.

Also odd, is that these patterns are "put off" until infinity. Which I guess is permissible, even if they are never part of the actual number.

What is the explanation for these strange patterns? Because personally, I think I have hit upon something big and (possibly) undiscovered. I think I may have also hit upon a simpler way of finding irrational numbers. (That is, if they show unique patterns too--just think of how the slide rule uses simple addition and subtraction to find multiplication. Think about it.)

And BTW, I don't think it is just a phenomenon found in calculators alone. the square root of .1 is 0.3162277... (note the "16" already there). In short, the pattern is already there, for all to see. It's clearly not a fluke.

 [:)] [O8)] [:)]
Logged
 



  • Print
Pages: [1]   Go Up
« previous next »
Tags:
 
There was an error while thanking
Thanking...
  • SMF 2.0.15 | SMF © 2017, Simple Machines
    Privacy Policy
    SMFAds for Free Forums
  • Naked Science Forum ©

Page created in 0.176 seconds with 25 queries.

  • Podcasts
  • Articles
  • Get Naked
  • About
  • Contact us
  • Advertise
  • Privacy Policy
  • Subscribe to newsletter
  • We love feedback

Follow us

cambridge_logo_footer.png

©The Naked Scientists® 2000–2017 | The Naked Scientists® and Naked Science® are registered trademarks created by Dr Chris Smith. Information presented on this website is the opinion of the individual contributors and does not reflect the general views of the administrators, editors, moderators, sponsors, Cambridge University or the public at large.