Re: Q:About primes?

On 6 Jan 2006 04:23:56 -0800, Pubkeybreaker wrote:

> The magnitude of a number is NOT the same as its size. The SIZE of a
> number is the number of bits (or digits, they differ only by a
> constant factor) needed to represent a number.
>
> Your first number is 751 digits. This is its SIZE.
> The second number is 749 digits. 751/749 ~ 1.00267
>
> What is it that compels people who have no understanding of even the
> basic definitions of a subject to show off their ignorance?

A person with apparently no understanding of even the basic definitions of
a subject shows off his ignorance: when you say "number", do you mean
integer? real? complex? What about e.g. fractions that recur in one base
but terminate in another? Your assertion about number of digits and number
of bits differing by a constant factor doesn't generalize to two arbitrary
bases, so the relative size of two numbers is base-dependent. I suppose you
could allow a special overdot "digit" once or twice to signify the
recurrence, but it's not clear to me that the relative size of two
fractions is independent of base.

Am I wrong, or were you only talking about integers in the first place?

Andy

--
spargeatbtinternetdotcom

No man is an island,
and almost no man is a peninsula
.

Quantcast