Recurring decimals, proof, and ice floes
Partly, of course, so that they develop thinking skills to use on questions whose truthstatus they won’t know in advance. Another part, however, concerns the dialogue nature of proof: a proof must be not only correct, but also persuasive: and persuasiveness is not objective and absolute, it’s a twobody problem. Not only to tango does one need two. The statements 
Statement (1) counts as fact because folk living in cooler climates have directly observed it throughout history (and because conflicting evidence is lacking). Statement (2) is factual in a significantly different sense, arising by further abstraction from (1) and from a million similar experiential observations: partly to explain (1) and its many cousins, we have conceived ideas like mass, volume, ratio of mass to volume, and explored for generations towards the conclusion that masstovolume works out the same for similar materials under similar conditions, and that the comparison of masstovolume ratios predicts which materials will float upon others.
Statement (3): 19 is a prime number. In what sense is this a fact? Its roots are deep in direct experience: the huntergatherer wishing to share nineteen apples equally with his two brothers or his three sons or his five children must have discovered that he couldn’t, without extending his circle of acquaintance so far that each got only one, long before he had a name for what we call ‘nineteen’. But (3) is many steps away from the experience where it is grounded. It involves conceptualisation of numerical measurements of sets one encounters, and millennia of thought to acquire symbols for these and codify procedures for manipulating them in ways that mirror how reality functions. We’ve done this so successfully that it’s easy to forget how far from the tangibles of experience they stand.
Statement (4): √2 is not exactly the ratio of two whole numbers. Most firstyear mathematics students know this. But by this stage of abstraction, separating its factness from its demonstration is impossible: the property of being exactly a fraction is not detectable by physical experience. It is a property of how we abstracted and systematised the numbers that proved useful in modelling reality, not of our handson experience of reality. The reason we regard √2’s irrationality as factual is precisely because we can give a demonstration within an accepted logical framework.
What then about recurring decimals? For persuasive argument, we must first ascertain the distance from reality at which the question arises: not, in this case, the rarified atmosphere of undergraduate mathematics but the primary school classroom. Once a child has learned rituals for dividing whole numbers and the convenience of decimal notation, she will try to divide, say, 2 by 3 and will hit a problem: the decimal representation of the answer does not cease to spew out digits of lesser and lesser significance no matter how long she keeps turning the handle. What should we reply when she asks whether zero point infinitely many 6’s is or is not two thirds, or even  as a thoughtful child should  whether zero point infinitely many 6’s is a legitimate symbol at all?
The answer must be tailored to the questioner’s needs, but the natural way forward  though it took us centuries to make it logically watertight  is the nineteenthcentury definition of sum of an infinite series. For the primary school kid it may suffice to say that, by writing down enough 6’s, we’d get as close to 2/3 as we’d need for any practical purpose. For differential calculus we’d need something better, and for modeltheoretic discourse involving infinitesimals something better again. Yet the underpinning mathematics for equalities like 0.6666··· = 2/3 where the question arises is the nineteenthcentury one. Its factness therefore resembles that of ice being less dense than water, of 19 being prime or of √2 being irrational: it can be demonstrated within a logical framework that systematises our observations of realworld experiences. So it is a fact not about reality but about the models we build to explain reality. Demonstration is the only tool available for establishing its truth.
Mathematics without proof is not like an omelette without salt and pepper; it is like an omelette without egg.
