John ...
1 111
_ and __________
3 333
are equivalent BUT
when the first fraction is used to represent
the second fraction, as in 1r3 then there
is a loss of information, i.e., the fact that
one is dividing 111 by 333.
In most cases, such a loss of factual information is irrelevant.
However, this may not always be the case. For example,
if you will pardon the stretch, an end-user who happens
to be a forensic accountant preparing a case against Enron
might prefer to see 111r333 in some instances.
Regardless, what I was really attempting to demonstrate
is that I would rather see
0.33333333333333333333333333333333...
in preference to 1r3.
regards,
gerry
From: "John Randall" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Sent: Monday, June 26, 2006 6:28 AM
GerryLowry1(905)825-9582{AbilityBusinessComputerServices} wrote:
> (a) 111 divided by 333 reduces to 1 divided by 3
> but is not 1 divided by 3 ... hence
> 111 % 333x
> 111r333 NB. non reduced representation
>
> (b) x could give something like
> 111 % 333x
> 0.33333333333333333333333333333333...
I don't see what you are getting at here. If you want to define
arithmetic for nonreduced fractions, fine. But 111%333 and 1%3 represent
the same rational number and 1 % 3x should give the same result. What
distinction are you drawing?
----------------------------------------------------------------------
For information about J forums see http://www.jsoftware.com/forums.htm
