2 ms·
I've never heard of that, and your definition of 1 as infinitesimal is incompatible withbits properties (infinitesimal + infinitesimal + infinitesimal is greate
by alisonkisk 6y ago
I've never heard of that, and your definition of 1 as infinitesimal is incompatible withbits properties (infinitesimal + infinitesimal + infinitesimal is greater than a non-infinitesimal 2?!) and I don't see a mention on Wikipedia, and it goes against the plain read it of "in-finite-simal".
Also, you seem to be conflating "common" with "standard". "standard" is a mathematical term. Infinitesimal are handwavy in standard analysis (epsilon-delta are the rigorous alternative), but exist rigorously in nonstandard analysis.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitesimal https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infinitesimal
- greggyb 6y agoI guess I'm using the wrong term, then. I often find it useful to have a concept of "smallest representable positive number," specifically for handling edge cases such as the one I gave up-thread. I see how that doesn't map to infinitesimal as defined in the shared link. There are other instances where I've had a need for such a smallest positive number, where logic is simplified as opposed to checking for 0 in a special way. Whether there's an agreed upon term for that, I know where I've found value in programming tasks. When I need such a thing, it is almost invariably in comparisons, so I am not doing arithmetic with multiple instances of that smallest representable positive number.