John Cowan wrote:
>> [Avogadro's number is a] bad example [of an inexact integer], 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########.

Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote:
> 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.

Yeah, on second thought, it's arguable whether Avogadro's number is an
inexact integer or a non-integral approximation. The population of the
Earth is a better example. Likewise for the number of atoms in the
canonical kilogram or the number of electrons in a cubic centimeter
(which is virtually impossible to count, because of the Heisenberg's
position-velocity uncertainty relationship).
--
Bradd W. Szonye
http://www.szonye.com/bradd