3 ms·
The use of \mathbb{R} for floats acts to obscure things for me I'm afraid. It loads up dusty old stuff in my brain about the reals that is not true of floats f
by dzamo_norton 10y ago
The use of \mathbb{R} for floats acts to obscure things for me I'm afraid. It loads up dusty old stuff in my brain about the reals that is not true of floats from the slow tape archive storage in my skull, and _doesn't_ load up stuff in my brain about floats like, say, where the first integer gap occurs[1]. A side note is that \mathbb{Q} would be a closer match to float.
[1] http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3793838/which-is-the-first-integer-that-an-ieee-754-float-is-incapable-of-representing-e http://stackoverflow.com/questions/3793838/which-is-the-firs...
- deleted 10y ago[deleted]
- qrian 10y agoI think we should view them as what we are trying to represent, not what they really are. Besides, with the same logic int32 or int64 isn't really an integer in a sense that it can't represent 2^64.
- OJFord 10y agoIt's still 'an integer'^, it's just that the set {i | i \in int64} is a proper subset of \mathbb{Z}; so using the latter to denote the former is inappropriate. ^i.e. for all i \in int64, i \in \mathbb{Z}.