Re: "Numeric overflow"?
Re: "Numeric overflow"?
- Subject: Re: "Numeric overflow"?
- From: John Baltutis <email@hidden>
- Date: Thu, 15 Sep 2005 17:26:46 -0700
On 09/15/05, Matt Neuburg <email@hidden> 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.)
Arrrrrrrrrrg! A rational number is one is the ratio of two integers, both
positive and negative ratios, with the exception of that one case where, if
the denominator is zero, the operation is undefined and thus, not a number.
Whereas, an irrational number is one that isn't rational. IMHO, a very
reasonable entity.
_______________________________________________
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