[003]
MikeRosoft
Current Version
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Well, I see what the poster meant. The real numbers don\'t normaly denote a quantity, but rather a magnitude of some measure. (You can have two pies, you can even have two pies and a half, but you don\'t say that you have 1.23456 [note: this IS a rational number] or sqrt(2) pies.) The part about countable and uncountable sets was just the poster trying to look clever by showing that he knows something about the set theory, and instead showing that he doesn\'t really know what he\'s talking about.
to:
Well, I see what the poster meant. The real numbers don\\\'t normaly denote a quantity, but rather a magnitude of some measure. (You can have two pies, you can even have two pies and a half, but you don\\\'t say that you have 1.23456 [note: this IS a rational number] or sqrt(2) pies.) The part about countable and uncountable sets was just the poster trying to look clever by showing that he knows something about the set theory (even though it\\\'s not really relevant here).
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Well, I see what the poster meant. The real numbers don\'t normaly denote a quantity, but rather a magnitude of some measure. (You can have two pies, you can even have to pies and a half, but you don\'t say that you have 1.23456 [note: this IS a rational number] or sqrt(2) pies.) The part about countable and uncountable sets was just the poster trying to look clever by showing that he knows something about the set theory, and instead showing that he doesn\'t really know what he\'s talking about.
to:
Well, I see what the poster meant. The real numbers don\\\'t normaly denote a quantity, but rather a magnitude of some measure. (You can have two pies, you can even have two pies and a half, but you don\\\'t say that you have 1.23456 [note: this IS a rational number] or sqrt(2) pies.) The part about countable and uncountable sets was just the poster trying to look clever by showing that he knows something about the set theory, and instead showing that he doesn\\\'t really know what he\\\'s talking about.
Changed line(s) 1 from:
n
Well, I see what the poster meant. The real numbers don\'t normaly denote a quantity, but rather a magnitude of some measure. (You can have two pies, you can even have to pies and a hlaf, but you don\'t say that you have 2.3456 [note: this IS a rational number] or sqrt(2) pies.) The part about countable and uncountable sets was just the poster trying to look clever by showing that he knows something about the set theory, and instead showing that he doesn\'t really know what he\'s talking about.
to:
Well, I see what the poster meant. The real numbers don\\\'t normaly denote a quantity, but rather a magnitude of some measure. (You can have two pies, you can even have to pies and a half, but you don\\\'t say that you have 1.23456 [note: this IS a rational number] or sqrt(2) pies.) The part about countable and uncountable sets was just the poster trying to look clever by showing that he knows something about the set theory, and instead showing that he doesn\\\'t really know what he\\\'s talking about.
