Re: Relative Cardinality



Virgil wrote:
> In article <1121097816.912804.89780@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
> mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
>
> > fiesh wrote:
> > > On 2005-07-10, mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx <mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
> > > wrote:
> > > > I do not ask for insidious reasons or for bigotry. But it is quite
> > > > obvious that only such real numbers can exist and obey the
> > > > order-axioms, which have at least one completely well-defined n-adic
> > > > representation.
> > >
> > > How funny, the BBP Formula actually _gives_ you a way to explicitly
> > > calculate any digit of pi in hexadecimal representation.
> > >
> > Look into their papers and find out how far they actually have come.
> > Position 10^10, that is very good. But you must know that by far more
> > 90 additional digits are required to reach position 10^100. Compared
> > with that aim nearly nothing has been achieved.
> >
> > > Which, of course, contradicts your statement that pi "doesn't exist,"
> > > unless you now argue that this criterion is not sufficient.
> >
> > I argued aleady the past that all 10^100 digits are required to compare
> > magnitudes but can't be stored in te whole universe. Both assertions
> > contained in this last sentence are true.
>
> The number of digits needed to compare two magnitudes depends only on
> the two magnitudes being compared, and, except for made up examples,
> rarely exceeds 20. Can WM find any occasion, other than a made up
> example, requiring even 100 digits?
>
Suddenly you are talking like a realist, Virgil! No, we do not need
more than 100 digits of pi for any practical application. But we may
want to, if there are ideas pretending they were numbers.
>
> No one knows how much can be stored in the whole universe since no one
> knows what that whole universe is.

Some scientists, astronomers and physicists, know a lot about the whole
accessible part of the universe. That *is* or universe.

Regards, WM

.

Quantcast