Re: Why float is called as 'float', not 'real'?
- From: Gordon Sande <g.sande@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 30 Mar 2007 13:00:53 GMT
On 2007-03-29 21:16:21 -0300, "Lane Straatman" <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxx> said:
"Gordon Sande" <g.sande@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:2007032920513775249-gsande@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
On 2007-03-29 18:59:37 -0300, "Lane Straatman" <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxx> said:
<blmblm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:5706nbF2bea5tU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <q6mdnVci2skFTpfbnZ2dnUVZ_gydnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
Lane Straatman <invalid@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
<blmblm@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:56tujvF2ad8chU1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <I56dnWZ7dZnD7pTbnZ2dnUVZ_sapnZ2d@xxxxxxxxxxx>,
I expect that a better technical description is that he showed that theYou're correct here.
continuum hypothesis to be independent of the axiom of choice. To say that
it could be either asserted or denied and that both possibilities could
lead
to consistent systems has a rather different sound than to say that it
could
not be decided even if both seem to have the same meaning. Common usage
and technical usage do not always coincide. The existance of the differing
systems do not lead to distinctions which are of great import to most
working
analysts even if they upset a few apple carts in the lands of the
logicians.
Incompleteness was long established by that time so the interest was more
that
both possibilities lead to consistent models. Conjecture is the technical
name for disagreement and there are many conjectures some of which are
awaiting
proof and others awaiting either proof or disproof.
It is this misinterpreting very technical statements as if they wereI think what drives your response is a disbelief that a number on a computer
phrased
as common statements has lead to many of the problems that have drawn
responses
for you here. Many words have lots of definitions in the dictionary but
that
does not mean that an arbitrary selection can be made out of context at
will
at any time with the result treated as any beyond randomly generated text.
could be something other than rational. I believe differently and think
that the math lines up behind me (see upthread).
Your questions were apparently based on the notion that existing implementations
of Fortran, and even those that might reasonably be contemplated, are capable
of doing mathematical operations on their intrinsic data types of sufficient
subtlety to make distinctions between rational, algebraic and transcendental
real values. All you can show to back this up is vague sophomoric pronouncements
with no hard verifiable statements. You have even gone so far as to claim rather
elementary and standard facts are demonstrable errors on the part of posters here.
In many math departments there is a bulletin board of the crank letters that
the graduate students can amuse themselves by answering. Many places even have
a standard pen name for the replies. You style and usage fits that genre of
the bulletin board letters.
There are several fields of computer science that are concerned with non-numerical
computing. Those rely on systems and data types other than the intrinsic data
types of Fortran. Symbolic manipulation in it multiple forms is an example which
is easy to find. Maple. Mathematica. Macsyma. And so on. But even there the
field extensions do not reach the technical heights which you are claiming for
naive Fortran.
.
- References:
- Why float is called as 'float', not 'real'?
- From: DirtyHarry
- Re: Why float is called as 'float', not 'real'?
- From: Gib Bogle
- Re: Why float is called as 'float', not 'real'?
- From: Lane Straatman
- Re: Why float is called as 'float', not 'real'?
- From: Richard Maine
- Re: Why float is called as 'float', not 'real'?
- From: Lane Straatman
- Re: Why float is called as 'float', not 'real'?
- From: Gordon Sande
- Re: Why float is called as 'float', not 'real'?
- From: Lane Straatman
- Re: Why float is called as 'float', not 'real'?
- From: Gordon Sande
- Re: Why float is called as 'float', not 'real'?
- From: Lane Straatman
- Re: Why float is called as 'float', not 'real'?
- From: Gordon Sande
- Re: Why float is called as 'float', not 'real'?
- From: Lane Straatman
- Re: Why float is called as 'float', not 'real'?
- From: blmblm
- Re: Why float is called as 'float', not 'real'?
- From: Lane Straatman
- Re: Why float is called as 'float', not 'real'?
- From: blmblm
- Re: Why float is called as 'float', not 'real'?
- From: Lane Straatman
- Re: Why float is called as 'float', not 'real'?
- From: blmblm
- Re: Why float is called as 'float', not 'real'?
- From: Lane Straatman
- Re: Why float is called as 'float', not 'real'?
- From: Gordon Sande
- Re: Why float is called as 'float', not 'real'?
- From: Lane Straatman
- Why float is called as 'float', not 'real'?
- Prev by Date: Re: Starting to doubt fortran
- Next by Date: Re: Why float is called as 'float', not 'real'?
- Previous by thread: Re: Why float is called as 'float', not 'real'?
- Next by thread: Re: Why float is called as 'float', not 'real'?
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|