Re: (may o r may not be on topi c) Floatin g point ar i thmetic

2010-05-06 Thread Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.)
In aanlktin_kwrunbcukbyiey5tsmvcjt65nibtb9spp...@mail.gmail.com, on 05/04/2010 at 06:18 PM, zMan zedgarhoo...@gmail.com said: I believe transcendental numbers are a subset of irrationals is a valid statement, but it sure *sounds* like 1970s psychobabble! And RBI doesn't? -- Shmuel

Re: (may o r may not be on topi c) Floatin g point ar i thmetic

2010-05-06 Thread zMan
On Thu, May 6, 2010 at 11:33 AM, Shmuel Metz (Seymour J.) shmuel+ibm-m...@patriot.net shmuel%2bibm-m...@patriot.net wrote: And RBI doesn't? Runs Batted In? Reserve Bank of India? Repetitive Brain Injury? -- For IBM-MAIN

Re: (may o r may not be on topi c) Floatin g point ar i thmetic

2010-05-04 Thread Paul Gilmartin
On Tue, 4 May 2010 09:55:21 -0500, McKown, John wrote: Numbers like sqrt(2) are irrational, i.e., not expressible as a fraction having an integer numerator and denominator. Numbers like pi and e are transcendental. They are a very different kettle of fish. So you're saying that a

Re: (may o r may not be on topi c) Floatin g point ar i thmetic

2010-05-04 Thread Howard Brazee
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.

Re: (may o r may not be on topi c) Floatin g point ar i thmetic

2010-05-04 Thread Paul Gilmartin
On Tue, 4 May 2010 09:27:22 -0600, Howard Brazee wrote: On 4 May 2010 08:11:31 -0700, (Paul Gilmartin) wrote: 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.)

Re: (may o r may not be on topi c) Floatin g point ar i thmetic

2010-05-04 Thread Howard Brazee
On 4 May 2010 08:42:50 -0700, paulgboul...@aim.com (Paul Gilmartin) wrote: 3. Numbers that we cannot represent, such as e or pi. FSVO cannot. Both e and pi are readily represented as sums of infinite series. Which may or may not be useful in our computations.

Re: (may o r may not be on topi c) Floatin g point ar i thmetic

2010-05-04 Thread Ted MacNEIL
FSVO cannot. Both e and pi are readily represented as sums of infinite series. Plus, they can be represented on a computer to the precision of the bits in the hardware. Is that enough? BTW, transendental numbers are a subset of irrationals. If a number can be represented as a fraction (a

Re: (may o r may not be on topi c) Floatin g point ar i thmetic

2010-05-04 Thread zMan
I believe transcendental numbers are a subset of irrationals is a valid statement, but it sure *sounds* like 1970s psychobabble! Like, man... -- For IBM-MAIN subscribe / signoff / archive access instructions, send email to