Re: About pii and integers
From: Keckman (keckman_at_welho.com)
Date: 09/27/04
- Next message: Daryl McCullough: "Re: Cantors proof"
- Previous message: Randy Poe: "Re: explain please the phi ratio"
- In reply to: *** T. Winter: "Re: About pii and integers"
- Next in thread: Michael Lockhart: "Re: About pii and integers"
- Reply: Michael Lockhart: "Re: About pii and integers"
- Reply: *** T. Winter: "Re: About pii and integers"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 27 Sep 2004 20:20:10 +0300
On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 00:38:07 GMT, *** T. Winter <***.Winter@cwi.nl> wrote:
> In article <opseyftvzk3uk9lu@cs81133.pp.htv.fi> Keckman Stronger, there
> is
> no number base wherein you can express all rational numbers in a finite
> number of digits.
You make the difference between the concept "number" and the "way it is
constructed"? I do not.
If we only accept on/off logic then there is no difference between that
queue that repsent for exaple number one "1" and that quueue that produce
the value of let me say "5/7" - i mean that queue that divide "number" 5
with number "7". That is the shortest express of number "5/7" - not that
fucking 10-base digital expression forexample (0.714285714285714...)
- Next message: Daryl McCullough: "Re: Cantors proof"
- Previous message: Randy Poe: "Re: explain please the phi ratio"
- In reply to: *** T. Winter: "Re: About pii and integers"
- Next in thread: Michael Lockhart: "Re: About pii and integers"
- Reply: Michael Lockhart: "Re: About pii and integers"
- Reply: *** T. Winter: "Re: About pii and integers"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]