I think that's right, yeah.
On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Brandon Allbery <allber...@gmail.com>wrote: > 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
