On Sat, 3 Apr 2010 23:13:51 -0700 (PDT) Mensanator <mensana...@aol.com> wrote:
> On Apr 3, 9:03 pm, Steven D'Aprano <st...@remove-this- > cybersource.com.au> wrote: > > On Sat, 03 Apr 2010 09:35:34 -0700, Mensanator wrote: > > > On Apr 3, 10:17 am, Steven D'Aprano <st...@remove-this- > > > cybersource.com.au> wrote: > > >> But you're not multiplying four numbers, > > > > > You are if you're using Rationals. > > > > That is sheer unadulterated nonsense. > > You obviously don't understand the workings of computers. > Now this is what's wrong about internet discussions. Nobody actually defines what they are talking about *until* it becomes a problem. And then the retconning starts. This discussion up to this point had not explicitly been about the workings of computers. It had not really explicitly been about mathematical numbers either (although to my understanding this had been implicit, but that's personal). Let this be a reminder that defining your terms is one of the best ideas ever. Its the reason for the success of mathematics. I'd like it to be a reason for the success of discussions as well. /W PS: Accusing someone publicly of "obviously" not understanding [some topic] is pretty low by any standards. And especially so when the argument for doing so is bogus: Computers by themselves have as much a notion of Rationals as they have of Irrationals, or, for that matter, the cuteness puppies. Software does. -- INVALID? DE! -- http://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
