esoter

4 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by esoter 6y ago

   Yes, i is neither rational nor irrational. I just edited to correct/remove that. It’s possible that I cannot define an irrational number as an real number member in a sometimes unknown location within a result set of a function, where
2. 2.▲
   by esoter 6y ago

   A word of warning: you’ll have to browse or crawl these pages periodically at minimum. Best case would be to diff the latest page with various IPs and user-agents against the known and then let you know when it changes. Someone will inevita
3. 3.▲
   by esoter 6y ago

   In this case, the function in the example representing a Doom value is a definite value in the set resulting from f(d, o), where d is the current date, and omniscience is o. Where the date of Doom game creation is t, when d ~< t, Doom is
4. 4.▲
   by esoter 6y ago

   In this case it can, but only conditionally. At all times, with sufficient knowledge and defined state you could instantaneously determine the Doom value, so it is a real number. With the example, prior to creation of the game Doom, Doom va
5. 5.▲
   by esoter 6y ago

   I’m proposing a new irrational number. It’s sometimes constant and sometimes not, depending on conditions, but is a set of finite numbers, where that set may be of unknown length or may be a known set of a single number. It’s a real number
6. 6.▲
   Doom: An irrational number that is finite and conditionally constant

   2 points by esoter 6y ago|9 comments