4 ms·
The question is whether the real numbers (as a set) are real, not whether each specific real number is a thing. Transcendental — the numbers that make the real
by Tloewald 8y ago
The question is whether the real numbers (as a set) are real, not whether each specific real number is a thing.
Transcendental — the numbers that make the real numbers distinct from the algebraic numbers — are not necessary for anything we do, and all the weirdest corner cases in math seem to come from treating them as a thing. sqrt(2) and 0.5 aren’t transcendental. 0.5 is a rational. Sqrt(2) is an algebraic. You can express them in physical terms (as roots of finite polynomials)
Most reals don’t need to exist for any purpose. All we need is some kind of vector space of constants (e.g. planck’s constant, electro-permeability, the speed of light, the mass of an electron) over the unbounded algebraics. It’s entirely possible that some of these constants would in fact be transcendental, but such a space is much much smaller than the reals. These are the numbers we can construct.
- ducttapecrown 8y agopi and e are very important numbers!
- roywiggins 8y agoThey also belong to the much smaller set of computable numbers. The set of all reals is almost entirely full of absolutely useless numbers- ones that can't be compressed or expressed by any algorithm or notation system with a finite amount of space.
- gowld 8y agoI've never seen one of these supposedly useless numbers. Every one I've seen can be expressed. ;-)
- Tloewald 8y agoRight, they might well be basis vectors.