Steven D'Aprano <st...@pearwood.info> writes: > On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 21:07:04 +1100, Ben Finney wrote: > > > You've done it again: by saying that “computers *do not* work with > > real numbers”, that if I find a real number – e.g. the number 4 – > > your position is that, since it's a real number, computers don't > > work with that number. > > That answer relies on the assumption that "computers do not work with X" > implies: > > for each element x in X: > it is true that "computers do not work with x" > > that is to say, a single counter-example of computers working with an > element of X, even if it is a fluke, is enough to disprove the rule.
Right. I'm pointing out that this is a natural interpretation of “computers do not work with X”. That is not the *only* natural interpretation, of course. But it is IMO a common enough interpretation that when trying to communicate clearly, one should re-phrase to avoid that false implication. -- \ “I prayed for twenty years but received no answer until I | `\ prayed with my legs.” —Frederick Douglass, escaped slave | _o__) | Ben Finney -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list