[Message Deleted]
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
It turns out you're on the "I'd love to convert" list!
you would have to meet me half way and that is a floating point value. :-D
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
Sounds pretty imaginary to me. :-D
I would teach the world that science is not about truth, but is about trying to get closer to the truth. - Kathy Sykes
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
It turns out you're on the "I'd love to convert" list!
you would have to meet me half way and that is a floating point value. :-D
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
Also, one cannot even give names, one cannot even refer to most real numbers.
The same goes for integers. Pick the biggest natural number you can think of. There are infinitely more larger then the one you named then there are below it. It doesn't matter what scheme you think of to try to assign unique names to them, all of humanity can't name them all.
The Grand Negus wrote:
Quantum mechanics, indeed its very name, suggests that the universe is not continuous, but quantized. We have quantization of charge, we have quantization of matter, even the quantization of energy and angular momentum, why not quantization of space and time itself?
That's wild speculation about the theory just because it happens to have quantum in the name of the theory. It is only called quantum mechanics due to misunderstandings about some of the early basic systems studied. Matrix or matter wave mechanics would be better names.
I would teach the world that science is not about truth, but is about trying to get closer to the truth. - Kathy Sykes
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
No physical constant has ever been measured to greater than 20 decimal places of accuracy
Would you like some humble pi with that?
pi is not really a 'physical' constant, it's more like a mathematic one, if you see what I mean. C (speed of light), alpha (important quantum constant, i don't know it's english name), G (gravity constant) are physical constant. Speaking of that I think we know 'alpha' with 28 decimal places...
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
Actually, 1/2 is a rational number fully supported by our compiler.
providing you are actually willing to sacrifice 4 to 10 times the CPU time for the operation. YOU are, I do not. See, I deal with speed, something you completely ignore as irrelevant. 1/2 is expensive, VERY expensive. NEVER divide when you can multiply instead, and NEVER use a sqrt() operation to compare vector lenghths, only when you must know the actual vector value. But then you ignore anything you don't believe in... which is why you must post huge volumes of text, and then follow with a justification from God for your righteousness. At least to make yourself feel better.
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Sounds pretty imaginary to me. :-D
I would teach the world that science is not about truth, but is about trying to get closer to the truth. - Kathy Sykes
Andy Brummer wrote:
Sounds pretty imaginary to me.
him meeting anyone in the world halfway. yup!
_________________________ Asu no koto o ieba, tenjo de nezumi ga warau. Talk about things of tomorrow and the mice in the ceiling laugh. (Japanese Proverb)
-
Right, we don't need most real numbers. But there are some non-rational numbers that we do need (e.g. pi, sqrt(2)...). By using numbering the Turing machine used to compute the real numbers, we see that all the real numbers we need (the computable real numbers) are countable, so can be mapped to integers. But we have to have some better representation for them because the Turing machine that calculates them fully (given infinite time) isn't good for calculating. So we use floating-point numbers. There is only a finite amount of them (definitely no more than 2number of bits), they're all computable, they're countable, they have only a finite precision - they have nothing in common with real numbers. Unlike real numbers, floating-point numbers are quite useful.
-
The Grand Negus wrote:
"I'd love to convert" list!
Preach it brother. :laugh:
This space available for advertising!