On 4 May 2010 08:11:31 -0700, paulgboul...@aim.com (Paul Gilmartin) wrote: >I perceive intense agreement here, subject to paraphrase. Yes, >"proper subset", so John might have more clearly stated, "smaller >kettle of fish". All real numbers are either algebraic or >transcendental; mutually exclusive. > >>> Rational numbers have decimal-fraction representations that >>> are either terminating or repeating, e.g. 1/2 = 0.5 and 1/3 = >>> 0.3333333... >>> >>> Irrational and transcendental numbers do not. >>> >>> In general, contributions to this list are valuable when >>> either 1) the poster talks about what he knows or 2) asks >>> questions about what he does not know. >> >My intuition tells me algebraic numbers are countable, but I'll >welcome a more informed correction. (That was either a guess >on something I know, or a question about what I don't know.)
For computing needs, these can translate into: 1. Numbers that we don't need to worry about. If we don't do any dividing, integers are integers are integers. 2. Numbers that we need to make sure don't give us errors that bother accountants. 2a. Use decimal arithmetic when we can. 2b. Use established accounting procedures to handle money smaller than the quantum amounts. e.g. when we have 1/3 of a cent. I wonder if there is a useful web site we should use as a starting reference. 3. Numbers that we cannot represent, such as e or pi. Often times these customers do their own computing, but they have sometimes not understood how their tools work, resulting in errors. The other part of our job is making sure that not only the analyses fit the requirements - but that whomever is working with the results understand the limits of the data. ---------------------------------------------------------------------- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to lists...@bama.ua.edu with the message: GET IBM-MAIN INFO Search the archives at http://bama.ua.edu/archives/ibm-main.html
