[Haskell-cafe] Mystery of an Eq instance

[David Thomas]

I think that's right, yeah.


On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 9:49 AM, Brandon Allbery <allbery.b at gmail.com>wrote:

> On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 12:43 PM, David Thomas <davidleothomas at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Sure.  An interesting, if not terribly relevant, fact is that there are
>> more irrational numbers that we *can't* represent the above way than that
>> we can (IIRC).
>>
>
> I think that kinda follows from diagonalization... it does handle more
> cases than only using rationals, but pretty much by the Cantor diagonal
> argument there's an infinite (indeed uncountably) number of reals that
> cannot be captured by any such trick.
>
> --
> brandon s allbery kf8nh                               sine nomine
> associates
> allbery.b at gmail.com
> ballbery at sinenomine.net
> unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad
> http://sinenomine.net
>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://www.haskell.org/pipermail/haskell-cafe/attachments/20130921/42a2dfa2/attachment.htm>