My comments
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
(19 Oct 2005 18:37 UTC)
|
Re: My comments
Bradd W. Szonye
(19 Oct 2005 19:17 UTC)
|
Re: My comments
Thomas Bushnell BSG
(19 Oct 2005 19:44 UTC)
|
Re: My comments
Bradd W. Szonye
(19 Oct 2005 19:55 UTC)
|
Re: My comments
Thomas Bushnell BSG
(19 Oct 2005 20:11 UTC)
|
Re: My comments
John.Cowan
(19 Oct 2005 20:10 UTC)
|
Re: My comments Thomas Bushnell BSG (19 Oct 2005 20:13 UTC)
|
Re: My comments
Bradd W. Szonye
(19 Oct 2005 20:25 UTC)
|
Re: My comments
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
(19 Oct 2005 20:23 UTC)
|
Re: My comments
Bradd W. Szonye
(19 Oct 2005 20:36 UTC)
|
Re: My comments
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
(19 Oct 2005 21:36 UTC)
|
Re: My comments
Bradd W. Szonye
(19 Oct 2005 21:42 UTC)
|
Re: My comments
Bradd W. Szonye
(19 Oct 2005 22:08 UTC)
|
Exactness (was Re: My comments)
bear
(20 Oct 2005 01:50 UTC)
|
Re: Exactness
Thomas Bushnell BSG
(20 Oct 2005 03:45 UTC)
|
Re: Exactness
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
(20 Oct 2005 09:13 UTC)
|
Re: Exactness
Bradd W. Szonye
(20 Oct 2005 20:15 UTC)
|
Re: Exactness
bear
(20 Oct 2005 22:09 UTC)
|
Re: Exactness
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
(21 Oct 2005 02:08 UTC)
|
Re: Exactness
Thomas Bushnell BSG
(21 Oct 2005 03:05 UTC)
|
Re: Exactness
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
(21 Oct 2005 08:15 UTC)
|
Re: Exactness
Thomas Bushnell BSG
(21 Oct 2005 18:38 UTC)
|
Re: Exactness
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
(21 Oct 2005 20:12 UTC)
|
Re: Exactness
Thomas Bushnell BSG
(21 Oct 2005 20:29 UTC)
|
Re: Exactness
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
(21 Oct 2005 20:38 UTC)
|
Re: Exactness
Thomas Bushnell BSG
(21 Oct 2005 20:44 UTC)
|
Re: Exactness
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
(21 Oct 2005 21:20 UTC)
|
Re: Exactness
Thomas Bushnell BSG
(21 Oct 2005 21:44 UTC)
|
Re: Exactness
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
(21 Oct 2005 22:18 UTC)
|
Re: Exactness
Thomas Bushnell BSG
(21 Oct 2005 22:48 UTC)
|
Re: Exactness
Marcin 'Qrczak' Kowalczyk
(22 Oct 2005 00:34 UTC)
|
Re: Exactness
Thomas Bushnell BSG
(22 Oct 2005 01:02 UTC)
|
Re: Exactness
Per Bothner
(22 Oct 2005 00:59 UTC)
|
"John.Cowan" <xxxxxx@reutershealth.com> writes: > Thomas Bushnell BSG scripsit: > >> > While they seem silly for small integers, inexact integers make sense >> > for huge values. For example, people often round huge integers to the >> > nearest million or billion. An even better example: Avogadro's number is >> > an integer, but it should not be represented as an exact integer, >> > because its exact value is unknown. >> >> What makes you think Avogadro's number is an integer? > > A bad example, no doubt. But the current world population, though > unquestionably an integer, is not exactly known, and it is quite plausible > to say that it is 64########. Yep, that's a better example indeed. ;) I don't disagree at all with the *real* point that inexact integers have useful applications; I agree that they do. Thomas