Real number: Difference between revisions

From Objective Mathematics
Jump to navigation Jump to search
No edit summary
mNo edit summary
Line 2: Line 2:


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.  
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.  
A real number should really just be the concept of a ''number'', meant in the broadest sense. Strictly speaking, quaternions, complex numbers, elements of finite fields, etc. are not numbers. 


== Examples ==
== Examples ==
Line 12: Line 14:
[[e]]
[[e]]


The number <math>0.x_1 x_2 x_3 x_4 \cdots</math>, where <math>x_i : \{0,1\}</math> is its <math>i</math>th digit in base 2, and where <math>x_i = 1</math> if <math>i</math> is prime, and 0 otherwise.  
The number <math>0.x_1 x_2 x_3 x_4 \cdots</math>, where <math>x_i : \{0,1\}</math> is its <math>i</math>th digit in base 2, and where <math>x_i = 1</math> if <math>i</math> is prime, and 0 otherwise. [TODO wtf does that mean]


The Euler-Mascheroni constant (where we don't actually know for sure whether or not it is rational)
The Euler-Mascheroni constant (where we don't actually know for sure whether or not it is rational) [TODO I'm not sure if it really makes sense]

Revision as of 17:44, 22 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.

A real number should really just be the concept of a number, meant in the broadest sense. Strictly speaking, quaternions, complex numbers, elements of finite fields, etc. are not numbers.

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. [TODO wtf does that mean]

The Euler-Mascheroni constant (where we don't actually know for sure whether or not it is rational) [TODO I'm not sure if it really makes sense]