Real number: Difference between revisions

From Objective Mathematics
Jump to navigation Jump to search
mNo edit summary
No edit summary
Line 1: Line 1:
I am not yet sure how to define real numbers. Many irrational numbers (e.g. <math>\sqrt{2}</math> and <math>\pi</math>) are in fact valid concepts, but the standard definition of the reals involves infinite nonsense.
I am not yet sure how to define real numbers. Many irrational numbers (e.g. <math>\sqrt{2}</math> and <math>\pi</math>) are in fact valid concepts, but the standard definition of the reals involves infinite nonsense.


I don't ''need'' to give them a set-theoretic definition. Real numbers are basically just the concept of numbers.
The concept of real numbers is a ''concept'': it identifies things out in reality. In particular, it does not need to be "constructed" via some set-theoretic method like Dedekind cuts, nor do such constructions even make sense. That any real number can be approximated by fractions is obvious: a fraction is the outcome of directly measuring any quantity with a standard ruler.  


== Examples ==
== Examples ==

Revision as of 01:17, 21 April 2024

I am not yet sure how to define real numbers. Many irrational numbers (e.g. and ) are in fact valid concepts, but the standard definition of the reals involves infinite nonsense.

The concept of real numbers is a concept: it identifies things out in reality. In particular, it does not need to be "constructed" via some set-theoretic method like Dedekind cuts, nor do such constructions even make sense. That any real number can be approximated by fractions is obvious: a fraction is the outcome of directly measuring any quantity with a standard ruler.

Examples

Any fraction.

Any algebraic number, like .

Pi

e

The number , where is its th digit in base 2, and where if is prime, and 0 otherwise.

The Euler-Mascheroni constant (where we don't actually know for sure whether or not it is rational)