Re: Counting taxicabs...
- From: Nis Jørgensen <nis@xxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 11 Sep 2007 12:37:18 +0200
Ted Schuerzinger skrev:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 08:51:48 +0800, Patrick Hamlyn wrote:
On Tue, 11 Sep 2007 08:51:48 +0800, Patrick Hamlyn quoted Nis Jørgensen:
I would claim that most (but not all) numbers cannot be expressed inI like this logic. A number has too many digits to write down, so it
decimal notation, and thus contain no digits at all.
has no digits. You could be a statistician with logic like that.
Hell, what am I saying, you could be a politician.
I figured Nis was talking about transcendental or irrational numbers,
which of course cannot be written in full in decimal notation, but only
approximated.
Thanks for the clarification.
x^y, where x and y are both rational numbers, yields more irrational
numbers than the set of rational numbers. (Or, at least, it approaches
infinity more quickly than the set of rational numbers does, if you
understand what I mean.)
I don't. The set you describe is equipotent with the rationals.
Nis
.
- References:
- Counting taxicabs...
- From: Risto Lankinen
- Re: Counting taxicabs...
- From: Richard Heathfield
- Re: Counting taxicabs...
- From: Ed Murphy
- Re: Counting taxicabs...
- From: Richard Heathfield
- Re: Counting taxicabs...
- From: Phil Carmody
- Re: Counting taxicabs...
- From: Richard Heathfield
- Re: Counting taxicabs...
- From: dgates
- Re: Counting taxicabs...
- From: Patrick Hamlyn
- Re: Counting taxicabs...
- From: Nis Jørgensen
- Re: Counting taxicabs...
- From: Patrick Hamlyn
- Re: Counting taxicabs...
- From: Ted Schuerzinger
- Counting taxicabs...
- Prev by Date: Re: Breathe vs breath
- Next by Date: Re: Old Movie Quotes
- Previous by thread: Re: Counting taxicabs...
- Next by thread: Re: Counting taxicabs...
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|