> "rational trigonometry" is more accurate, and that's a concrete claim with is 1) easily verifiable and 2) wrong. I do not see how it is easily verifiable. Ra

> "rational trigonometry" is more accurate, and that's a concrete claim with is 1) easily verifiable and 2) wrong. I do not see how it is easily verifiable. Rational trigonometry, as I understand, does not use angles, so it is not clear for me how to use it in a lot of cases. I belive there are ways to do it, but it needs some research or reading Wildberger... So, its not seems for me as "easily". > the bizarre claim that "we count in base 10, which only has two exact fractions: 1/2, which is 0.5, and 1/5." There's so much wrong with that, it's hard to know where to start. To my mind, it is just imprecise wording from Wildberger side. Or maybe it precise in his rational way of thinking, but we, accepting irrational numbers, see it imprecise. I belive, that he meant to say, that 1/2 and 1/5 is some kind of "base" fractions and all fractions that can be written presice is `(1/2)^m*(1/5)^n`, where m and n are non-negative intergers. And to write precise is means to write in decimal representation. I cannot see any other explanation of Wildberger words which would not imply that Wildberger just plain stupid, which is improbable. Really, I like the idea: we know how to solve a lot problems with irrational numbers, but does it possible to solve them without irrational? How far mathematics can go without irrational numbers?