Deborah Harrell wrote:
sigh
Clearly I must bow to those with superior knowledge in
this field - but I still don't have to like the kinked
logic of a supposedly rational _Mathematics_. ;P
Mathematics is not about numbers, it's about abstract
things that can be manipulated using known rules.
At 12:50 AM 12/15/02 +, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
But sets can become much more weirder than irrational numbers
Indeed, they can _be_ irrational numbers . . . unless you think that's too
unkind a cut.
--Ronn! :)
I always knew that I would see the first man on the Moon.
I never dreamed
Ronn! Blankenship wrote:
At 12:50 AM 12/15/02 +, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
But sets can become much more weirder than irrational numbers
Indeed, they can _be_ irrational numbers . . . unless you think that's too
unkind a cut.
What kind of cut would that be?
:)
Julia
At 04:26 PM 12/15/02 -0600, Julia Thompson wrote:
Ronn! Blankenship wrote:
At 12:50 AM 12/15/02 +, Alberto Monteiro wrote:
But sets can become much more weirder than irrational numbers
Indeed, they can _be_ irrational numbers . . . unless you think that's too
unkind a cut.
What kind
--- Bryon Daly [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
but if multiplying two negative numbers is
_supposed_ to make a positive, the square root of a
negative number 'should not be' possible.
That's why they're called imaginary numbers!
Imaginary or
not, though,
Deborah Harrell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
speak ;D ), but if multiplying two negative numbers is
_supposed_ to make a positive, the square root of a
negative number 'should not be' possible.
That's why they're called imaginary numbers! Imaginary or
not, though, they're quite useful...
It's
--- Robert J. Chassell [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
[I wrote:]
My grasp of formal logic is tentative at best,
but I
never understood why one should propose an
imaginary
number like the square root of -2 (IIRC the
term
correctly), as - to me - math is supposed to
describe
Deborah Harrell wrote:
My grasp of formal logic is tentative at best, but I
never understood why one should propose an imaginary
number like the square root of -2 (IIRC the term
correctly), as - to me - math is supposed to describe
the real world, not an impossible one.
It makes me very sad
My grasp of formal logic is tentative at best, but I
never understood why one should propose an imaginary
number like the square root of -2 (IIRC the term
correctly), as - to me - math is supposed to describe
the real world, not an impossible one.
You are being confused by the
--- Alberto Monteiro [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Deborah Harrell wrote:
My grasp of formal logic is tentative at best, but
I
never understood why one should propose an
imaginary
number like the square root of -2 (IIRC the term
correctly), as - to me - math is supposed to
describe
the
Logic question: if an answer to a question relies on changing a principal axiom of the
Universe, is the answer then irrational (or otherwise invalid)?
-j-
___
http://www.mccmedia.com/mailman/listinfo/brin-l
--- Miller, Jeffrey [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Logic question: if an answer to a question relies on
changing a principal axiom of the Universe, is the
answer then irrational (or otherwise invalid)?
My grasp of formal logic is tentative at best, but I
never understood why one should propose an
On Fri, Dec 06, 2002 at 12:56:14AM -0600, The Fool wrote:
And yet most fractals including the mandelbrot set and electricity,
rely on the 'square root of -1', in fact i is very necessary for
electrical engineers.
No, it is not necessary. But it is often expedient.
--
Erik Reuter [EMAIL
13 matches
Mail list logo
