Re: "Numeric overflow"?
Re: "Numeric overflow"?
- Subject: Re: "Numeric overflow"?
- From: deivy petrescu <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 18:53:34 -0400
On Sep 15, 2005, at 13:55, Christopher Nebel wrote:
On Sep 14, 2005, at 5:45 PM, deivy petrescu wrote:
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.)
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!
Well, that's because you're not 6th century-BC Greek cultist. =)
The "discovery" (and suppression of) irrational numbers is credited
to the Pythagoreans, who believed that all things are, essentially,
numeric. The idea of a number that had a perfectly simple
geometric representation yet could not be written down precisely
was profoundly disturbing to them. Other classes of numbers have
suffered similar prejudices -- negatives, trancendentals, trans-
finites, and so on. See <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pythagorean>
and <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Irrational_number>.
--Chris Nebel
AppleScript and Automator Engineering
I think that the definition at wikipedia, pretty much proves my
point... That is, someone that can not logically disprove something
and then kills the person that logically proved it, seems as
irrational as pi.
At least to me! :)
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