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> <hhpl0g$9l1$1@smc.vnet.net>
- 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. Bobby On Wed, 06 Jan 2010 19:55:56 -0600, Andrzej Kozlowski <akoz at mimuw.edu.pl> wrote: > > 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. > > Andrzej > -- DrMajorBob at yahoo.com