The quantity 1/3 is only theoretical

I should have explained this clearer though. I am not arguing by the definition per say of what mathematicians would argue by definition to be "real", just the logic of what is applicable quantitatively. So for the rest of the debate we can use the term theoretical if you like. In this debate I am also going by the base 10 decimal system to avoid confusion in case you were going to be arguing in another base number. On an actual base 10 number line defined as 1 unit, let's say consisting of no matter to avoid confusion, only an approximation of 1/3 can exist. The reasoning? Well, look at it this way.1/x=3x=1/3 right? Well, theoretically. Here is why. If there was a value that actually went into one three times, then it would be the same as say 18/3=6The problem is that in 10 base decimal system, you will never sucessfully divide 1 into three equal parts. By saying 3x=1x=1/3You are using the theoretical 1/3 because by saying3(1/3)=1You assume there are infact three equal parts of 1 that will in fact add up to equal 1. But quantitively, 1/3 gives you an aproximation only. While it is infinitely close however, it will not reach 1/3, because 3s do not add up to onesThis is silly but just to help explain .33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333 .33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333+.33333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333333_________________________________________________________________________ .9999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999999The pattern goes on infinitely, and will always infinitely draw closer, but will never reach 1. Allbeit, since the number is infinitely close to a third of one, we use it as such, but in theory. Saying there is a 1/3 of 1 is theoretical becuase it simply does not exist, and because the version we use in mathmatics is infinitely close to the correct value with an infinitely small percent error we round it to the term 1/3 of 1 since it effects calculations to infintiely small margin. But you have to understand, I'm only arguing there is no 1/3 of any base 10 numbers, ie 10, 100, 1000 etc An easy example of this is that 1/3 of say 90 is infact 30. Because 90 is divisible evenly by 30, you get an exact answer. 30 times three does equal 90. You can plug that back in as 30(3)=90 and your answer is not theoretical becuase there is an exact 1/3 of 90 unlike one where you are forced to round for terms of practicality. The 18/3 example I used does work out quantitatively becuase: 6.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 6.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000 +6.000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000____________________________________________________________________does equal 6 becuase the zeros will infinitely cancel because 0+0+0=zero so the number ends but .33333s will never end, and will continue to grow more complex for eternityBut back to the base 10 number line defined as 1 unit, you will not be able to pinpoint 1/3, because doing so would indicate you have found a point where there is an exact third of one, where one divided by 3 gives you a rational answer, which we have already disproved. I understand you may be arguing from a traditional numberline they show you in school, but you must understand on that line is just an approximation of where it would be in theory. Back over to con