Is 2/3 > 0.666?

[mathdad]

Does 2/3 equal 0.666? If not, which is larger? By how much?

Let me see. I say 2/3 does not equal 0.666.

Here’s my reason:

The fraction 2/3 is a fraction representing two parts out of three.
It’s a precise value.

The decimal number 0.666 is a representation of a number close to 2/3. It’s an approximation because the decimal representation of 2/3 repeats non-stop as 0.66666…

Do you agree?

Which is larger?

I say 2/3 > 0.666.


You say?

At another forum, the following explanation was given as a reply, and I quote:

"Think of it this way: 0.666 is actually equivalent to 666/1000. If you were to find a common denominator for 2/3 and 666/1000, you would see that 2/3 represents a slightly larger portion of the whole."

You say?

You say?

 

[lev888]

Does 2/3 equal 0.666? If not, which is larger? By how much?

Let me see. I say 2/3 does not equal 0.666.

Here’s my reason:

The fraction 2/3 is a fraction representing two parts out of three.
It’s a precise value.

The decimal number 0.666 is a representation of a number close to 2/3. It’s an approximation because the decimal representation of 2/3 repeats non-stop as 0.66666…

Do you agree?

Which is larger?

I say 2/3 > 0.666.


You say?

At another forum, the following explanation was given as a reply, and I quote:

"Think of it this way: 0.666 is actually equivalent to 666/1000. If you were to find a common denominator for 2/3 and 666/1000, you would see that 2/3 represents a slightly larger portion of the whole."

You say?

You say?

Why 0.666 and not 0.66 or 0.6666?

 

[Dr.Peterson]

The question you were presumably given is:

Does 2/3 equal 0.666? If not, which is larger? By how much?

You say this:

Let me see. I say 2/3 does not equal 0.666.

Here’s my reason:

The fraction 2/3 is a fraction representing two parts out of three.
It’s a precise value.

The decimal number 0.666 is a representation of a number close to 2/3. It’s an approximation because the decimal representation of 2/3 repeats non-stop as 0.66666…

Do you agree?

Which is larger?

I say 2/3 > 0.666.

That's correct. Presumably what you are observing is that adding on more digits to 0.666 to make 0.666666... increases the number. That's valid reasoning, and nothing more is really needed.

Now someone else said this:

At another forum, the following explanation was given as a reply, and I quote:

"Think of it this way: 0.666 is actually equivalent to 666/1000. If you were to find a common denominator for 2/3 and 666/1000, you would see that 2/3 represents a slightly larger portion of the whole."

I don't know why you have to ask us this. The next step is for you to react: Do you agree? Do your understand? If not, what part?

Did you try carrying this out? Did you try subtracting 2/3 from 666/1000? If you get a positive result, that confirms your previous conclusion.

But the way you benefit from such discussions is by being actively involved, responding to them. Taking a question from one forum to another is (a) inefficient, and (b) disrespectful.

 

[lookagain]

Now someone else said this:

I don't know why you have to ask us this. The next step is for you to react: Do you agree? Do your understand? If not, what part?

Did you try carrying this out? Did you try subtracting 2/3 from 666/1000? If you get a positive result, that confirms your previous conclusion.

But the way you benefit from such discussions is by being actively involved, responding to them. Taking a question from one forum to another is (a) inefficient, and (b) disrespectful.

@ Peterson -- Why are you even bothering to reply to this or similar posts!? With my elemental wisdom,
I have already pointed out mathdad is trolling at this site and is being "disrespect"/uncivil as you stated.

 

[mathdad]

@ Peterson -- Why are you even bothering to reply to this or similar posts!? With my elemental wisdom,
I have already pointed out mathdad is trolling at this site and is being "disrespect"/uncivil as you stated.

You have been reported.

 

[mathdad]

The question you were presumably given is:

You say this:

That's correct. Presumably what you are observing is that adding on more digits to 0.666 to make 0.666666... increases the number. That's valid reasoning, and nothing more is really needed.

Now someone else said this:

I don't know why you have to ask us this. The next step is for you to react: Do you agree? Do your understand? If not, what part?

Did you try carrying this out? Did you try subtracting 2/3 from 666/1000? If you get a positive result, that confirms your previous conclusion.

But the way you benefit from such discussions is by being actively involved, responding to them. Taking a question from one forum to another is (a) inefficient, and (b) disrespectful.

Your reply is amazing and professional.