Re: abundance of irrationals
From: Emil Vatai (vatai_at_inf.elte.hu)
Date: 01/12/05
- Next message: Ralph Hartley: "Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false?"
- Previous message: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz: "Re: countability of reals"
- In reply to: mueckenh_at_rz.fh-augsburg.de: "Re: abundance of irrationals"
- Next in thread: stephen_at_nomail.com: "Re: abundance of irrationals"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Wed, 12 Jan 2005 14:15:05 +0100
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote:
> No, the natural numbers (in digits or bits for instance) make it to be
> more than a name. Numbers are required for counting, counting requires
> numbers. That is their primary duty. Rational numbers count in the unit
> of their denominators. Irrational numbers don't count at all.
If I understand correctly, you say 3 is not just a name, because we can
represent it with bits?!
That is not true, you can interpret some bits as the number 3 but 3 has
no implementation.
For example
0x0011 binary code= 3
0x0010 gray code = 3
0x0111 my code = 3
0x1000 your code = 3
tri in Serbian = 3
3 = 3
these are all just names, from the name we decide we're talking about 3,
and not vise versa. 0x0011 can also be left left right right in a dance
choreography.
... for a mathematician that is... but for a less creative person 0x0011
might mean 3 and only 3 and that person might think that 0x0011 is the
physical for of a number :)
- Next message: Ralph Hartley: "Re: THIS STATEMENT HAS NO PROOF IN ANY SYSTEM = true or false?"
- Previous message: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz: "Re: countability of reals"
- In reply to: mueckenh_at_rz.fh-augsburg.de: "Re: abundance of irrationals"
- Next in thread: stephen_at_nomail.com: "Re: abundance of irrationals"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|