On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 12:43 PM, David Thomas <davidleotho...@gmail.com>wrote:
> Sure. An interesting, if not terribly relevant, fact is that there are > more irrational numbers that we *can't* represent the above way than that > we can (IIRC). > I think that kinda follows from diagonalization... it does handle more cases than only using rationals, but pretty much by the Cantor diagonal argument there's an infinite (indeed uncountably) number of reals that cannot be captured by any such trick. -- brandon s allbery kf8nh sine nomine associates allber...@gmail.com ballb...@sinenomine.net unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad http://sinenomine.net
_______________________________________________ Haskell-Cafe mailing list Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe
