Re: Well Ordering the Reals

In article <MPG.1dfe6f3cc9b8c98598a820@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Tony Orlow <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> David R Tribble said:
> > William Hughes wrote:
> > > OK, so given
> > > 0:0...010...0
> > >
> > > I have no idea what this means until I have a lot more information
> >
> > Which makes it pretty obvious that Tony's notation is vastly
> > incomplete. If we can't use it to represent a number in no
> > uncertain terms, what good is it? If we always have to explain
> > parenthetically how the sizes and digit positions for each number
> > are different than those of all the other numbers we write, what
> > good is the notation?
> >
> >
> If I can't get a good answer to 3.4*+13-, then what good is arithmetic?

To TO, none. To everyone else, quite a bit.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Well Ordering the Reals
    ... > David R Tribble said: ... >>> Which makes it pretty obvious that Tony's notation is vastly ... >> Nor have you demonstrated that this incomplete notation ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Well Ordering the Reals
    ... David R Tribble said: ... > William Hughes wrote: ... > Which makes it pretty obvious that Tony's notation is vastly ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Well Ordering the Reals
    ... Tony Orlow wrote: ... > David R Tribble said: ... >> William Hughes wrote: ... >> Which makes it pretty obvious that Tony's notation is vastly ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Well Ordering the Reals
    ... David R Tribble said: ... Tony, I have two numbers: ... So you're saying that your notation does not convey sufficient ...
    (sci.math)
  • #402 multiplication again and a better Place Value Notation; new textbook: "Mathematical-Physics
    ... Given the Binary Notation where you have only the digits of 0 and 1, ... So there, David and Jesse, there, I got rid of the confusion where the notation is confusing you as to the actual number and the actual arithmetic. ... And where the leftmost digit is in the 10^9999...9998 (and David do not ...
    (sci.math)
Quantcast