The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Matheology § 430
Replies: 28   Last Post: Feb 12, 2014 4:06 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]

Posts: 3,394
Registered: 10/18/08
Re: Matheology § 430
Posted: Feb 10, 2014 7:53 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

Am Montag, 10. Februar 2014 11:51:05 UTC+1 schrieb

> But pi and sqrt(17) are not numbers, they are incommensurable magnitudes. There is a big difference between a magnitude and a number.

Of course. Before I wrote my book I considered to call then irrationalities in order to emphasize the difference. But the notation real number has been generally accepted (like the notation complex number has been accepted) and it would require always long and winded explanations to deviate from that agreement.

> In fact, there are infinitely many rational numbers that cannot be represented in decimal.

Yes, if you restrict your notation on the fixed base 10 (deci), that is right, for example for 1/3. But there are other bases such that every rational can be expressed without error.

> Actually e can be represented exactly! e is exactly represented by f(0) where f(x)= (1+x)^(1/x).

Amusingly, Euler has used that kind of notation: (1 + 1/oo)^oo, often with an "i" for numerus infinitus. But it is easy to confuse the meaning, because 1 + 0 = 1 and 1^whatever is 1.

> There is no need to consider limits at all, which are inherently ill defined.

What is your critique?

Regards, WM

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.