Re: "Numeric overflow"?
Re: "Numeric overflow"?
- Subject: Re: "Numeric overflow"?
- From: deivy petrescu <email@hidden>
- Date: Wed, 14 Sep 2005 20:45:30 -0400
On Sep 14, 2005, at 14:41, Matt Neuburg wrote:
On Tue, 13 Sep 2005 12:02:44 -0600, Gnarlodious
<email@hidden> said:
I have often considered zero to be an unreasonable number
Zero is reasonable. The square root of two is not, and was
correctly named
so by the Greeks who actually called it "unreasonable". (The Latin
calque
"irrational" loses a lot in translation.)
m.
I have no idea of whom was the unreasonable Greek that called square
root of 2 unreasonable.
It is not. It is actually very reasonable. It is the length of the
diagonal of a square of side 1.
This seems quite reasonable to me!
However, irrational for square root of 2 has absolutely nothing to do
with rational as something related to reasonable. Irrational, is a
number that can not be written as a ratio of an Integer (the set of
Integers is the set of all the numbers everybody likes, including
zero and the negatives) and a Natural (the set of the positive
integers) number.
So, when one says Pi is irrational, one says that Pi is certainly
*not* equal to 22/7.
deivy
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Applescript-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden