
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 > leastupperbound 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

