3 ms·
That's all very well (and Goldberg's paper is excellent); but it has nothing whatever to do with the linked page, which is by Fields medallist Tim Gowers, argui
by gjm11 17y ago
That's all very well (and Goldberg's paper is excellent); but it has nothing whatever to do with the linked page, which is by Fields medallist Tim Gowers, arguing that in pure mathematics "infinite decimals" is as good a way to construct the real numbers as "Cauchy sequences" or "Dedekind cuts".
For what little it's worth, I agree with Gowers, and have done since before I read that page, though I'd prefer to use binary rather than decimal.
- mustpax 17y agoThanks for pointing that out, I stand corrected. In my defense, I wasn't trying to criticize the theoretical content of the article, which, in all honesty, is beyond my mathematical knowledge to criticize. The real number to "infinite" decimal conversion issue just reminded me of the age-old floating point number arithmetic problem, so I let out a little rant.