<div dir="ltr">On Sat, Sep 21, 2013 at 12:43 PM, David Thomas <span dir="ltr"><<a href="mailto:davidleothomas@gmail.com" target="_blank">davidleothomas@gmail.com</a>></span> wrote:<br><div class="gmail_extra"><div class="gmail_quote">
<blockquote class="gmail_quote" style="margin:0 0 0 .8ex;border-left:1px #ccc solid;padding-left:1ex"><div dir="ltr"><div>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).<br>
</div></div></blockquote><div><br></div><div>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.</div>
<div><br></div></div>-- <br><div dir="ltr"><div>brandon s allbery kf8nh sine nomine associates</div><div><a href="mailto:allbery.b@gmail.com" target="_blank">allbery.b@gmail.com</a> <a href="mailto:ballbery@sinenomine.net" target="_blank">ballbery@sinenomine.net</a></div>
<div>unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad <a href="http://sinenomine.net" target="_blank">http://sinenomine.net</a></div></div>
</div></div>