3 ms·
Well, I'd say then, that's what abstractions are for! Seriously, I think that's part of the role of abstractions, and that's why we _currently_ can talk about
by lobo_tuerto 15y ago
Well, I'd say then, that's what abstractions are for!
Seriously, I think that's part of the role of abstractions, and that's why we _currently_ can talk about and use reals.
Even though we can't write the entire Pi number, and the program used to calculate all its digits might never finish, we do have a symbol for it, and put it to good use. What do you think?
- ColinWright 15y agoBut we do have a symbol for pi and we can write a program which, for any required N, can print the first N digits. But there are only countably many numbers for which that is true. Uncountably many numbers cannot have symbols and cannot have programs to represent them. If we can never name them, not even in principle, does it make sense even to say that they exist? (Note: Don't think you can extrapolate my own personal view from the above, I am merely pointing out that there are non-trivial questions here, questions that most people don't seem to notice or understand.)