Re: Re: Re: Re: algebraic numbers
- To: mathgroup at smc.vnet.net
- Subject: [mg106286] Re: [mg106238] Re: [mg106220] Re: [mg106192] Re: algebraic numbers
- From: DrMajorBob <btreat1 at austin.rr.com>
- Date: Thu, 7 Jan 2010 02:31:42 -0500 (EST)
- Organization: Deep Space Corps of Engineers
- References: <200912290620.BAA02732@smc.vnet.net> <firstname.lastname@example.org>
- Reply-to: drmajorbob at yahoo.com
Well... I'm not a philosopher, so I don't read a lot of philosophy.
But I haven't seen computers doing topology on infinite sets or arithmetic
on uncountable ones... or a great many other things we humans do.
Yes, my view is simplistic, no doubt.
On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 19:55:56 -0600, Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz at mimuw.edu.pl>
> On 7 Jan 2010, at 10:28, DrMajorBob wrote:
>> Yes, this discussion is far too philosophical... but it HAS illuminated
>> a few real-world Mathematica behaviors.
>>> are you only claiming that "all computer reals are rationals" or are
>>> you also claiming that "all reals are rationals"?
>> The former.
> I am curious about still one thing. Roger Penrose has written two large
> books, essentially all about this issue. Other people have written
> hundreds of pages countering his arguments. Just type in "Penrose,
> computable, real" into a google search and you will find over 52,000
> results. I assume based on your posts you have not read much of that
> sort of stuff.
> Still, I find a little strange is that you seem to consider this matter
> so obvious that it can be just dealt with in a few lines while all these
> people have felt it necessary to devote so much time and space to this
> very issue.
DrMajorBob at yahoo.com
Prev by Date:
Re: Storing lists on SQL
Next by Date:
Re: Re: overimpose graphics on an imported image
Previous by thread:
Re: algebraic numbers
Next by thread:
Re: Re: algebraic numbers