|
|
Re: Foundations of real numbers
Posted:
Oct 11, 2012 3:58 AM
|
|
On 10/10/2012 18:30, Paul wrote:
> It seems ridiculous to me to define the real numbers by using the
> least-upper-bound property as an axiom,
> So the Cauchy sequence definition is much better, and I like the
> Dedekind cuts definition too.
The first approach is a way to *characterize* R.
The other approaches are ways to *construct* R.
Here's a nice paper:
http://uk.arxiv.org/abs/1204.4483
|
|
