Where did the universe come from? Atheistic origin science has no answer.

[Alex K]

Up until now I'd been using the "/" to symbolize division not a fraction

Wut?!

[Huggy Bear]

Up until now I'd been using the "/" to symbolize division not a fraction

Wut?!

How, did i not make myself clear? I had been using / to symbolize the division of numbers.

as in 12/3 = 4

[Chas]

You're the one who introduced the notion that the ratio 34/23.7 had to be a common fraction. It doesn't. That was a red herring introduced by you to avoid having to address the main question. And since a ratio is a dimensionless number (no units involved), 34/23.7 can be expressed as a fraction, 340/237. Whether everybody here is using exactly proper terminology is irrelevant to the main question raised as to whether Phi is expressed as a naturally occurring ratio in DNA. Your arguing about this side matter rather than addressing the main point just makes you look like a weasel.

Not true, let me explain.

I think we can all agree that the number 34 was never in dispute, the issue was whether the width of DNA was 20, 21, or 22-27. Mine was 21, the problem was Sugenator came up with more than one measurement, so when he posted 34/23.7 I assumed he took the average of 20, 22, 27 which comes out to 23 no idea where he got the .7.

Up until now I'd been using the "/" to symbolize division not a fraction and since 34/23.7 had a decimal in it, I never saw it as a fraction, and as far as I know, you can either display a ratio as a decimal or fraction, not both. When I made the comment that it wasn't a ratio, you're the ones that derailed the thread.

The fact that it wasn't properly formatted as a ratio is all i was saying.

It's not a derail when you show ignorance of basic mathematical concepts and notation. Have we moved beyond that, yet?

Do you understand that 34/23.7 is a fraction?
Do you understand that 34/23.7 is a ratio?

[Alex K]

Wut?!

How, did i not make myself clear? I had been using / to symbolize the division of numbers.

as in 12/3 = 4

Wat is, according to you, da difference between the meaning of / in a ratio and the meaning of / in a fraction?

[Huggy Bear]

Do you understand that 34/23.7 is a fraction?

that's the thing, 34/23.7 is NOT how you write a proper fraction, I already made this clear.

[Anomalocaris]

Do you understand that 34/23.7 is a fraction?

that's the thing, 34/23.7 is NOT how you write a proper fraction, I already made this clear.

Uh, no. You made clear what, in your profound ignorance, you imagined a fraction to be.

But, You are not a matchematician, and you can't be a mathematician if your concept of fraction is what you say it is, you have demonstrated a rather shocking lack of grasp of fraction operation, and you can't be bothered to look up the meaning of math terms.

Therefore no one cares what you imagine fractions to be. Get over it.

34/23.7 is not a proper fraction only because numerator is greater than denominator, not because the denominator is a decimal. The word proper in this context does not mean what you think it means. It only denotes one particular type of fraction in which the numerator is less than the denominator. It does not mean any fraction that is not a proper fraction is therefore not a legitimate or acceptable fraction.

What you are struggling towards, emshrouded in the amorphous fog of confusion and ignorance as you are, is the term for a fraction where both the numerator and denominator are integers. That type of fraction is called a common or vulgar fraction. Again, the word vulgar in this context does not mean what you think it means. It only denotes one particular type of fraction. Again, It does not mean any fraction that is not a vulgar fraction is therefore not a a legitimate or acceptable fraction.

And yes, a fraction can be both proper and vulgar, and it can one but not the other, and it can be neither.

[Restan]

There was a conversation?

How can you argue with someone who can't grasp a concept?

[Angrboda]

I think we can all agree that the number 34 was never in dispute, the issue was whether the width of DNA was 20, 21, or 22-27. Mine was 21, the problem was Sugenator came up with more than one measurement, so when he posted 34/23.7 I assumed he took the average of 20, 22, 27 which comes out to 23 no idea where he got the .7.

If you google "23.7 Å dna" you'll find the figure cited multiple places, including in textbooks. I haven't traced the figure to its original source. Since when he first cited the figure he linked to his source, I find your current story somewhat incredible.

[Anomalocaris]

You're the one who introduced the notion that the ratio 34/23.7 had to be a common fraction. It doesn't. That was a red herring introduced by you to avoid having to address the main question. And since a ratio is a dimensionless number (no units involved), 34/23.7 can be expressed as a fraction, 340/237. Whether everybody here is using exactly proper terminology is irrelevant to the main question raised as to whether Phi is expressed as a naturally occurring ratio in DNA. Your arguing about this side matter rather than addressing the main point just makes you look like a weasel.

Not true, let me explain.

I think we can all agree that the number 34 was never in dispute, the issue was whether the width of DNA was 20, 21, or 22-27. Mine was 21, the problem was Sugenator came up with more than one measurement, so when he posted 34/23.7 I assumed he took the average of 20, 22, 27 which comes out to 23 no idea where he got the .7.

Up until now I'd been using the "/" to symbolize division not a fraction and since 34/23.7 had a decimal in it, I never saw it as a fraction, and as far as I know, you can either display a ratio as a decimal or fraction, not both. When I made the comment that it wasn't a ratio, you're the ones that derailed the thread.

The fact that it wasn't properly formatted as a ratio is all i was saying.

What fucking difference does it make?????

[Alex K]

There was a conversation?

How can you argue with someone who can't grasp a concept?

What concept have I not grasped and should have, in your opinion?