[Date Index] [Thread Index] [Author Index]

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