On Wed, Feb 12, 2014 at 7:56 PM, Ben Finney <ben+pyt...@benfinney.id.au> wrote: > So, if I understand you right, you want to say that you've not found a > computer that works with the *complete* set of real numbers. Yes?
Correct. When jmf referred to real numbers, he implied that there are no optimizations done for natural numbers, that everything's just as efficient for any real number as for any other. My point is that computers *do not* work with real numbers, but only ever with some subset thereof, and that certain subsets (integers usually) are optimized for in ways that other subsets aren't. A true "real number" type might be useful in a few extremely narrow situations, but for the most part, I'd much rather have the optimized implementation that works with a subset thereof, and actually runs within reasonable time/space complexity. (Though, that said, I think a lot of programmers could do with some education on exactly _what_ subset of real numbers they're working with. The classic IEEE double-precision floating point type is good enough with low numbers that lots of people seem to think it stores reals, which it doesn't.) ChrisA -- https://mail.python.org/mailman/listinfo/python-list
