Working with the set of real numbers

[Ben Finney]

Steven D'Aprano <steve at pearwood.info> writes:

> On Wed, 12 Feb 2014 21:07:04 +1100, Ben Finney wrote:
>
> > You've done it again: by saying that “computers *do not* work with
> > real numbers”, that if I find a real number – e.g. the number 4 –
> > your position is that, since it's a real number, computers don't
> > work with that number.
>
> That answer relies on the assumption that "computers do not work with X" 
> implies:
>
>     for each element x in X:
>         it is true that "computers do not work with x"
>
> that is to say, a single counter-example of computers working with an 
> element of X, even if it is a fluke, is enough to disprove the rule.

Right. I'm pointing out that this is a natural interpretation of
“computers do not work with X”.

That is not the *only* natural interpretation, of course. But it is IMO
a common enough interpretation that when trying to communicate clearly,
one should re-phrase to avoid that false implication.

-- 
 \           “I prayed for twenty years but received no answer until I |
  `\          prayed with my legs.” —Frederick Douglass, escaped slave |
_o__)                                                                  |
Ben Finney