[Date Index]
[Thread Index]
[Author Index]
Re: Re: Re: algebraic numbers
*To*: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
*Subject*: [mg106237] Re: [mg106220] Re: [mg106192] Re: algebraic numbers
*From*: DrMajorBob <btreat1 at austin.rr.com>
*Date*: Wed, 6 Jan 2010 05:57:14 -0500 (EST)
*References*: <200912290620.BAA02732@smc.vnet.net> <hhpl0g$9l1$1@smc.vnet.net>
*Reply-to*: drmajorbob at yahoo.com
Obviously, it DOES make them rational "in a sense"... the sense in which I
mean it, for example.
Bobby
On Tue, 05 Jan 2010 20:41:34 -0600, Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz at mimuw.edu.pl>
wrote:
>
> On 6 Jan 2010, at 11:13, DrMajorBob wrote:
>
>> I completely understand that Mathematica considers 1.2 Real, not
>> Rational... but that's a software design decision, not an objective
>> fact.
>
> I think we are talking cross purposes. You seem to believe (correct me
> if I am wrong) that numbers somehow "exist". Well, I have never seen one
> - and that applies equally to irrational and rationals and even
> (contrary to Kronecker) integers. I do not know what the number 3 looks
> like, nor what 1/3 looks like (I know how we denote them, but that's not
> the sam thing). So I do not think that the notion of "computer numbers"
> makes any sense and hence to say that all computer numbers are rational
> also does not make sense. There are only certain things that we
> interpret as numbers and when we interpret them as rationals they are
> rationals and when we interpret them as non-computable reals than they
> are just that.
> Of course we know that a computer can only store a finite number of such
> objects at a given time, but that fact in no sense makes them "rational".
>
> Andrzej Kozlowski
--
DrMajorBob at yahoo.com
Prev by Date:
**Re: Re: Re: algebraic numbers**
Next by Date:
**Re: Re: Wrong ODE solution in Mathematica 7?**
Previous by thread:
**Re: algebraic numbers**
Next by thread:
**Re: Re: Re: algebraic numbers**
| |