Re: It is irrational to put rational and irrational numbers on the same lin

On Sep 18, 6:45 am, Lester Zick <dontbot...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 10:30:03 -0700, Randy Poe <poespam-t...@xxxxxxxxx>
wrote:





On Sep 17, 1:26 pm, Lester Zick <dontbot...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mon, 17 Sep 2007 09:36:36 -0700, Pubkeybreaker

<pubkeybrea...@xxxxxxx> wrote:

Prime Digits wrote:

Pi and E are our best friends. We could not do without them. But if we
do not know their exact values how do we relate to them.

But we do know their exact values. What we don't know is their exact
values in DECIMAL REPRESENTATION.

Technically "fractional" representation.

No, technically "decimal" representation.

Never heard of non decimal fractions, ace?

You are confusing the *representation* of a number with the number
itself.

A failing endemic to modern mathematikers. However we also know these
numbers are not defined between rationals. We know pi, for example, is
only exactly defined on circular arcs.

Pi is exactly defined, and circular arcs are not
needed for that definition.

Pi is defined as the ratio of a circle's circumference to its diameter
and occurs in unit multiples on the circumference of circles.

~v~~- Hide quoted text -

- Show quoted text -

Sorry, no circles. That's why you can't square the circle. Let's keep
it simple.
No spheres, of course.
No cubes, surprisingly.
And even more surprisingly... not squares except at even magnitudes.

.