4 ms·
It's certainly possible to interpret numbers as types, but it's not particularly common AFAIK, since there are generally more convenient interpretations of arit
by nimih 2y ago
It's certainly possible to interpret numbers as types, but it's not particularly common AFAIK, since there are generally more convenient interpretations of arithmetic for a given problem domain (von Neumann sets, Dedekind cuts, IEEE 754 floating point values, &c &c).
- koolala 2y agoimaginary numbers to me are more real than real numbers, they are the numbers of geometry - i like them being first class numbers
- nimih 2y agoPersonally, I've always found that the non-rigidity of the complex numbers (i.e. that when considered as a field, they admit a non-trivial automorphism), which requires the introduction of the Re and Im operators (i.e. projection back to the reals) to banish, to be strongly suggestive that the reals have a somehow more "real" ontological status.