4 ms·
> The same applies to rational numbers (which exist more than real numbers) Wait, did you say there are more rationals than reals? Isn't that the other way aro
by TuringTest 5y ago
> The same applies to rational numbers (which exist more than real numbers)
Wait, did you say there are more rationals than reals? Isn't that the other way around?
I don't know if that's a slip of the tongue or I'm missing something in my recall of basic math lessons
- HelloNurse 5y agoReal numbers do not exist: they are convenient, but there is a high risk of crossing over from reality-relevant math to nonsense because of infinite calculations. Real numbers are of course more numerous than rational numbers, just like unicorn horns are more numerous than horse horns, but it's an entirely different question.
- TuringTest 5y agoNo numbers exist, they are abstraction on human-created procedures. Even naturals, which are an abstraction over pointing to things and counting.
- gowld 5y agoThey are "more existent" ("less fictional"), not "more in cardinality".
- TuringTest 5y agoHow are they more existent? They are both patterns of recognized concepts in human brains. Is it because more people understand rationals than reals? Ok, that would make rationals more existent, as they exist in more brains.