Skip to main content

Timeline for What is a Real Number?

Current License: CC BY-SA 3.0

10 events
when toggle format what by license comment
Nov 19, 2011 at 13:32 history edited Adam Zalcman CC BY-SA 3.0
added 25 characters in body
Nov 3, 2011 at 1:05 comment added anon @simplicity: Without a non-arbitrary definition of "true numbers${}^{\mathrm{(TM)}}$" to go by it'd be nothing but hot air.
Nov 3, 2011 at 0:54 comment added simplicity @AdamZalcman Who cares what computer scientist think? or them crazy intuitionist mathematician. I suppose you can argue that only natural numbers are true numbers.
Nov 3, 2011 at 0:32 comment added Adam Zalcman Some might argue that real numbers aren't numbers. They might see real numbers as just series. Which, in their view wouldn't be numbers.
Nov 3, 2011 at 0:31 comment added anon @simplicity: We already know which algebraic structure we're in, so there is no possibility of confusion with other notions of number and your point about semantics does not obtain. Moreover, as Henning states in chat, you yourself called $i$ a "number" in your first comment to the question. Ultimately, mathematics at this sort of level all boils down to study of various algebraic structures, wherein the ones most closely connected with the original notions of numbers and the trending generalizations thereof receive the label of number.
Nov 3, 2011 at 0:17 comment added simplicity @ChrisTaylor well, semantics in this case are important. Surreal numbers, hyperreals, ordinal numbers.
Nov 3, 2011 at 0:12 comment added The Chaz 2.0 @simplicity: You might consider a new moniker. (Yes, I am aware of matrix representations of complex numbers and quaternions)
Nov 3, 2011 at 0:12 comment added Chris Taylor That's semantics, not mathematics.
Nov 3, 2011 at 0:06 comment added simplicity You can argue that complex numbers aren't numbers. I personally see complex numbers as just matrices. Which, in my view aren't numbers.
Nov 3, 2011 at 0:02 history answered Adam Zalcman CC BY-SA 3.0