A geometry theory without irrational numbers?Do mathematicians, in the end, always agree?Real Numbers to Irrational PowersInfinite irrational number sequences?Do irrational numbers have equivalence classes the way rational numbers do?Are there numbers that if proven rational (or irrational) will have important consequences to mathematics?Are irrational numbers irrational by nature?Rational mean of irrational numbers?Is there a “positive” definition for irrational numbers?Geometric proofs outside euclidean geometryHow many Irrational numbers?Continued fractions of rational vs irrational numbers
How can I make my BBEG immortal short of making them a Lich or Vampire?
How could indestructible materials be used in power generation?
Why can't we play rap on piano?
What to put in ESTA if staying in US for a few days before going on to Canada
SSH "lag" in LAN on some machines, mixed distros
Is delete *p an alternative to delete [] p?
Is the Joker left-handed?
Western buddy movie with a supernatural twist where a woman turns into an eagle at the end
Can a virus destroy the BIOS of a modern computer?
What's the difference between 'rename' and 'mv'?
intersection of two sorted vectors in C++
Is it possible to run Internet Explorer on OS X El Capitan?
Watching something be written to a file live with tail
When a company launches a new product do they "come out" with a new product or do they "come up" with a new product?
Took a trip to a parallel universe, need help deciphering
Assassin's bullet with mercury
Does a druid starting with a bow start with no arrows?
Should I tell management that I intend to leave due to bad software development practices?
Why doesn't H₄O²⁺ exist?
Do I have a twin with permutated remainders?
What reasons are there for a Capitalist to oppose a 100% inheritance tax?
How can I tell someone that I want to be his or her friend?
How to show the equivalence between the regularized regression and their constraint formulas using KKT
What is the PIE reconstruction for word-initial alpha with rough breathing?
A geometry theory without irrational numbers?
Do mathematicians, in the end, always agree?Real Numbers to Irrational PowersInfinite irrational number sequences?Do irrational numbers have equivalence classes the way rational numbers do?Are there numbers that if proven rational (or irrational) will have important consequences to mathematics?Are irrational numbers irrational by nature?Rational mean of irrational numbers?Is there a “positive” definition for irrational numbers?Geometric proofs outside euclidean geometryHow many Irrational numbers?Continued fractions of rational vs irrational numbers
$begingroup$
Is there any theory or theorem of geometry -- whether used in practice or not -- which denies or forbids the use of irrational numbers?
If not, were there any notable attempts at it?
Disclaimer: I am not looking for a proof for the existence of irrational number.
geometry math-history irrational-numbers
asked 11 hours ago
Eyal RothEyal Roth
1113
New contributor
Eyal Roth is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
|
show 8 more comments
$begingroup$
Is there any theory or theorem of geometry -- whether used in practice or not -- which denies or forbids the use of irrational numbers?
If not, were there any notable attempts at it?
Disclaimer: I am not looking for a proof for the existence of irrational number.
geometry math-history irrational-numbers
asked 11 hours ago
Eyal RothEyal Roth
1113
New contributor
Eyal Roth is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
2
$begingroup$
A geometrically interesting subset of the real numbers are the constructible numbers, you can find some information on that on Wikipedia and read into it from there if interested. However, these also include some irrational numbers (but not all).
$endgroup$
– Dirk
11 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
Have you heard of finite geometry, as in: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_geometry ? This is geometry where there are only a fintie numbre of points, hence you can assign them all natural numbers.
$endgroup$
– quarague
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
@quarague Why not add it as an answer? :)
$endgroup$
– Eyal Roth
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
Irrational numbers were discovered during the early development of geometry (finding lengths of hypotenuses of right triangles). This gives an idea how limiting such a restriction would be.
$endgroup$
– Hans Engler
11 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@EyalRoth That is surely a matter of opinion :)
$endgroup$
– Hans Engler
11 hours ago
|
show 8 more comments
$begingroup$
Is there any theory or theorem of geometry -- whether used in practice or not -- which denies or forbids the use of irrational numbers?
If not, were there any notable attempts at it?
Disclaimer: I am not looking for a proof for the existence of irrational number.
geometry math-history irrational-numbers
asked 11 hours ago
Eyal RothEyal Roth
1113
New contributor
Eyal Roth is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
$endgroup$
Is there any theory or theorem of geometry -- whether used in practice or not -- which denies or forbids the use of irrational numbers?
If not, were there any notable attempts at it?
Disclaimer: I am not looking for a proof for the existence of irrational number.
geometry math-history irrational-numbers
geometry math-history irrational-numbers
asked 11 hours ago
Eyal RothEyal Roth
1113
New contributor
Eyal Roth is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 11 hours ago
Eyal RothEyal Roth
1113
New contributor
Eyal Roth is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
edited 11 hours ago
Eyal Roth
asked 11 hours ago
Eyal RothEyal Roth
1113
New contributor
Eyal Roth is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
asked 11 hours ago
Eyal RothEyal Roth
1113
asked 11 hours ago
Eyal RothEyal Roth
1113
1113
New contributor
Eyal Roth is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
New contributor
Eyal Roth is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
Eyal Roth is a new contributor to this site. Take care in asking for clarification, commenting, and answering.
Check out our Code of Conduct.
2
$begingroup$
A geometrically interesting subset of the real numbers are the constructible numbers, you can find some information on that on Wikipedia and read into it from there if interested. However, these also include some irrational numbers (but not all).
$endgroup$
– Dirk
11 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
Have you heard of finite geometry, as in: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_geometry ? This is geometry where there are only a fintie numbre of points, hence you can assign them all natural numbers.
$endgroup$
– quarague
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
@quarague Why not add it as an answer? :)
$endgroup$
– Eyal Roth
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
Irrational numbers were discovered during the early development of geometry (finding lengths of hypotenuses of right triangles). This gives an idea how limiting such a restriction would be.
$endgroup$
– Hans Engler
11 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@EyalRoth That is surely a matter of opinion :)
$endgroup$
– Hans Engler
11 hours ago
|
show 8 more comments
2
$begingroup$
A geometrically interesting subset of the real numbers are the constructible numbers, you can find some information on that on Wikipedia and read into it from there if interested. However, these also include some irrational numbers (but not all).
$endgroup$
– Dirk
11 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
Have you heard of finite geometry, as in: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_geometry ? This is geometry where there are only a fintie numbre of points, hence you can assign them all natural numbers.
$endgroup$
– quarague
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
@quarague Why not add it as an answer? :)
$endgroup$
– Eyal Roth
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
Irrational numbers were discovered during the early development of geometry (finding lengths of hypotenuses of right triangles). This gives an idea how limiting such a restriction would be.
$endgroup$
– Hans Engler
11 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@EyalRoth That is surely a matter of opinion :)
$endgroup$
– Hans Engler
11 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
A geometrically interesting subset of the real numbers are the constructible numbers, you can find some information on that on Wikipedia and read into it from there if interested. However, these also include some irrational numbers (but not all).
$endgroup$
– Dirk
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
A geometrically interesting subset of the real numbers are the constructible numbers, you can find some information on that on Wikipedia and read into it from there if interested. However, these also include some irrational numbers (but not all).
$endgroup$
– Dirk
11 hours ago
2
2
$begingroup$
Have you heard of finite geometry, as in: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_geometry ? This is geometry where there are only a fintie numbre of points, hence you can assign them all natural numbers.
$endgroup$
– quarague
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
Have you heard of finite geometry, as in: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_geometry ? This is geometry where there are only a fintie numbre of points, hence you can assign them all natural numbers.
$endgroup$
– quarague
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
@quarague Why not add it as an answer? :)
$endgroup$
– Eyal Roth
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
@quarague Why not add it as an answer? :)
$endgroup$
– Eyal Roth
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
Irrational numbers were discovered during the early development of geometry (finding lengths of hypotenuses of right triangles). This gives an idea how limiting such a restriction would be.
$endgroup$
– Hans Engler
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
Irrational numbers were discovered during the early development of geometry (finding lengths of hypotenuses of right triangles). This gives an idea how limiting such a restriction would be.
$endgroup$
– Hans Engler
11 hours ago
1
1
$begingroup$
@EyalRoth That is surely a matter of opinion :)
$endgroup$
– Hans Engler
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
@EyalRoth That is surely a matter of opinion :)
$endgroup$
– Hans Engler
11 hours ago
|
show 8 more comments
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I don't know how helpful you will find it, but there are videos on YouTube by njwildberger on rational trigonometry. The main idea is to avoid taking square roots and deal with squares of lengths and ratios between them. He calls it quadrance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGj399xIssQ&list=PL3C58498718451C47
http://www.wildegg.com/intro-rational-trig.html
Trouble is, the irrational approach seems to be working fine so there is no reason to completely overhaul the system.
answered 11 hours ago
Chris MoorheadChris Moorhead
1095
$endgroup$
8
$begingroup$
It should also be mentioned, however, the njwildberger is considered a bit of a contrarian on the fringes and that one should be ready with a grain of salt when consuming his material. If you (eyal roth, the original poster) do not have a lot of mathematical maturity, his message might be more confusing/distracting than informative. I'm far from an expert on his subject area though, and maybe some of it stands up better than the negative parts I have heard about.
$endgroup$
– rschwieb
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@rschwieb Thanks for the warning. I'm quite agnostic in nature, so I tend to employ a lot of critical thinking and try to figure out things on my own before I accept a proposition.
$endgroup$
– Eyal Roth
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@EyalRoth That's good, but even so, keep an eye on your watch as you budget time to sink into that material.
$endgroup$
– rschwieb
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
I agree, he is somewhat eccentric, but I can see the rationale behind some of his objections. I think the rational trig idea is more that he thinks it would be easier to teach because it is more intuitive and teaches you a geometry closer to the Greek's understanding. But for someone who has learned the existing system, it is like trying to learn to write with your other hand.
$endgroup$
– Chris Moorhead
10 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Have you heard of finite geometry, as in: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_geometry ? This is geometry where there are only a finite number of points. So you don't even need rationals, natural numbers suffice.
answered 11 hours ago
quaraguequarague
621312
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Well, the natural numbers "sort of" suffice. The things that are being used as coordinates in finite geometries aren't really like natural numbers either (there's no order, for example.) . But in terms of there only being finitely many things in the field, yeah, you wouldn't need "as many" things in your system of numbers.
$endgroup$
– rschwieb
10 hours ago
add a comment |
Your Answer
StackExchange.ifUsing("editor", function ()
return StackExchange.using("mathjaxEditing", function ()
StackExchange.MarkdownEditor.creationCallbacks.add(function (editor, postfix)
StackExchange.mathjaxEditing.prepareWmdForMathJax(editor, postfix, [["$", "$"], ["\\(","\\)"]]);
);
);
, "mathjax-editing");
StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);
StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);
else
createEditor();
);
function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);
);
Eyal Roth is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3174657%2fa-geometry-theory-without-irrational-numbers%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
2 Answers
2
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
active
oldest
votes
$begingroup$
I don't know how helpful you will find it, but there are videos on YouTube by njwildberger on rational trigonometry. The main idea is to avoid taking square roots and deal with squares of lengths and ratios between them. He calls it quadrance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGj399xIssQ&list=PL3C58498718451C47
http://www.wildegg.com/intro-rational-trig.html
Trouble is, the irrational approach seems to be working fine so there is no reason to completely overhaul the system.
answered 11 hours ago
Chris MoorheadChris Moorhead
1095
$endgroup$
8
$begingroup$
It should also be mentioned, however, the njwildberger is considered a bit of a contrarian on the fringes and that one should be ready with a grain of salt when consuming his material. If you (eyal roth, the original poster) do not have a lot of mathematical maturity, his message might be more confusing/distracting than informative. I'm far from an expert on his subject area though, and maybe some of it stands up better than the negative parts I have heard about.
$endgroup$
– rschwieb
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@rschwieb Thanks for the warning. I'm quite agnostic in nature, so I tend to employ a lot of critical thinking and try to figure out things on my own before I accept a proposition.
$endgroup$
– Eyal Roth
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@EyalRoth That's good, but even so, keep an eye on your watch as you budget time to sink into that material.
$endgroup$
– rschwieb
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
I agree, he is somewhat eccentric, but I can see the rationale behind some of his objections. I think the rational trig idea is more that he thinks it would be easier to teach because it is more intuitive and teaches you a geometry closer to the Greek's understanding. But for someone who has learned the existing system, it is like trying to learn to write with your other hand.
$endgroup$
– Chris Moorhead
10 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I don't know how helpful you will find it, but there are videos on YouTube by njwildberger on rational trigonometry. The main idea is to avoid taking square roots and deal with squares of lengths and ratios between them. He calls it quadrance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGj399xIssQ&list=PL3C58498718451C47
http://www.wildegg.com/intro-rational-trig.html
Trouble is, the irrational approach seems to be working fine so there is no reason to completely overhaul the system.
answered 11 hours ago
Chris MoorheadChris Moorhead
1095
$endgroup$
8
$begingroup$
It should also be mentioned, however, the njwildberger is considered a bit of a contrarian on the fringes and that one should be ready with a grain of salt when consuming his material. If you (eyal roth, the original poster) do not have a lot of mathematical maturity, his message might be more confusing/distracting than informative. I'm far from an expert on his subject area though, and maybe some of it stands up better than the negative parts I have heard about.
$endgroup$
– rschwieb
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@rschwieb Thanks for the warning. I'm quite agnostic in nature, so I tend to employ a lot of critical thinking and try to figure out things on my own before I accept a proposition.
$endgroup$
– Eyal Roth
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@EyalRoth That's good, but even so, keep an eye on your watch as you budget time to sink into that material.
$endgroup$
– rschwieb
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
I agree, he is somewhat eccentric, but I can see the rationale behind some of his objections. I think the rational trig idea is more that he thinks it would be easier to teach because it is more intuitive and teaches you a geometry closer to the Greek's understanding. But for someone who has learned the existing system, it is like trying to learn to write with your other hand.
$endgroup$
– Chris Moorhead
10 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
I don't know how helpful you will find it, but there are videos on YouTube by njwildberger on rational trigonometry. The main idea is to avoid taking square roots and deal with squares of lengths and ratios between them. He calls it quadrance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGj399xIssQ&list=PL3C58498718451C47
http://www.wildegg.com/intro-rational-trig.html
Trouble is, the irrational approach seems to be working fine so there is no reason to completely overhaul the system.
answered 11 hours ago
Chris MoorheadChris Moorhead
1095
$endgroup$
I don't know how helpful you will find it, but there are videos on YouTube by njwildberger on rational trigonometry. The main idea is to avoid taking square roots and deal with squares of lengths and ratios between them. He calls it quadrance.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GGj399xIssQ&list=PL3C58498718451C47
http://www.wildegg.com/intro-rational-trig.html
Trouble is, the irrational approach seems to be working fine so there is no reason to completely overhaul the system.
answered 11 hours ago
Chris MoorheadChris Moorhead
1095
answered 11 hours ago
Chris MoorheadChris Moorhead
1095
answered 11 hours ago
Chris MoorheadChris Moorhead
1095
answered 11 hours ago
Chris MoorheadChris Moorhead
1095
1095
8
$begingroup$
It should also be mentioned, however, the njwildberger is considered a bit of a contrarian on the fringes and that one should be ready with a grain of salt when consuming his material. If you (eyal roth, the original poster) do not have a lot of mathematical maturity, his message might be more confusing/distracting than informative. I'm far from an expert on his subject area though, and maybe some of it stands up better than the negative parts I have heard about.
$endgroup$
– rschwieb
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@rschwieb Thanks for the warning. I'm quite agnostic in nature, so I tend to employ a lot of critical thinking and try to figure out things on my own before I accept a proposition.
$endgroup$
– Eyal Roth
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@EyalRoth That's good, but even so, keep an eye on your watch as you budget time to sink into that material.
$endgroup$
– rschwieb
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
I agree, he is somewhat eccentric, but I can see the rationale behind some of his objections. I think the rational trig idea is more that he thinks it would be easier to teach because it is more intuitive and teaches you a geometry closer to the Greek's understanding. But for someone who has learned the existing system, it is like trying to learn to write with your other hand.
$endgroup$
– Chris Moorhead
10 hours ago
add a comment |
8
$begingroup$
It should also be mentioned, however, the njwildberger is considered a bit of a contrarian on the fringes and that one should be ready with a grain of salt when consuming his material. If you (eyal roth, the original poster) do not have a lot of mathematical maturity, his message might be more confusing/distracting than informative. I'm far from an expert on his subject area though, and maybe some of it stands up better than the negative parts I have heard about.
$endgroup$
– rschwieb
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@rschwieb Thanks for the warning. I'm quite agnostic in nature, so I tend to employ a lot of critical thinking and try to figure out things on my own before I accept a proposition.
$endgroup$
– Eyal Roth
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@EyalRoth That's good, but even so, keep an eye on your watch as you budget time to sink into that material.
$endgroup$
– rschwieb
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
I agree, he is somewhat eccentric, but I can see the rationale behind some of his objections. I think the rational trig idea is more that he thinks it would be easier to teach because it is more intuitive and teaches you a geometry closer to the Greek's understanding. But for someone who has learned the existing system, it is like trying to learn to write with your other hand.
$endgroup$
– Chris Moorhead
10 hours ago
8
8
$begingroup$
It should also be mentioned, however, the njwildberger is considered a bit of a contrarian on the fringes and that one should be ready with a grain of salt when consuming his material. If you (eyal roth, the original poster) do not have a lot of mathematical maturity, his message might be more confusing/distracting than informative. I'm far from an expert on his subject area though, and maybe some of it stands up better than the negative parts I have heard about.
$endgroup$
– rschwieb
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
It should also be mentioned, however, the njwildberger is considered a bit of a contrarian on the fringes and that one should be ready with a grain of salt when consuming his material. If you (eyal roth, the original poster) do not have a lot of mathematical maturity, his message might be more confusing/distracting than informative. I'm far from an expert on his subject area though, and maybe some of it stands up better than the negative parts I have heard about.
$endgroup$
– rschwieb
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@rschwieb Thanks for the warning. I'm quite agnostic in nature, so I tend to employ a lot of critical thinking and try to figure out things on my own before I accept a proposition.
$endgroup$
– Eyal Roth
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@rschwieb Thanks for the warning. I'm quite agnostic in nature, so I tend to employ a lot of critical thinking and try to figure out things on my own before I accept a proposition.
$endgroup$
– Eyal Roth
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@EyalRoth That's good, but even so, keep an eye on your watch as you budget time to sink into that material.
$endgroup$
– rschwieb
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
@EyalRoth That's good, but even so, keep an eye on your watch as you budget time to sink into that material.
$endgroup$
– rschwieb
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
I agree, he is somewhat eccentric, but I can see the rationale behind some of his objections. I think the rational trig idea is more that he thinks it would be easier to teach because it is more intuitive and teaches you a geometry closer to the Greek's understanding. But for someone who has learned the existing system, it is like trying to learn to write with your other hand.
$endgroup$
– Chris Moorhead
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
I agree, he is somewhat eccentric, but I can see the rationale behind some of his objections. I think the rational trig idea is more that he thinks it would be easier to teach because it is more intuitive and teaches you a geometry closer to the Greek's understanding. But for someone who has learned the existing system, it is like trying to learn to write with your other hand.
$endgroup$
– Chris Moorhead
10 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Have you heard of finite geometry, as in: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_geometry ? This is geometry where there are only a finite number of points. So you don't even need rationals, natural numbers suffice.
answered 11 hours ago
quaraguequarague
621312
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Well, the natural numbers "sort of" suffice. The things that are being used as coordinates in finite geometries aren't really like natural numbers either (there's no order, for example.) . But in terms of there only being finitely many things in the field, yeah, you wouldn't need "as many" things in your system of numbers.
$endgroup$
– rschwieb
10 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Have you heard of finite geometry, as in: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_geometry ? This is geometry where there are only a finite number of points. So you don't even need rationals, natural numbers suffice.
answered 11 hours ago
quaraguequarague
621312
$endgroup$
$begingroup$
Well, the natural numbers "sort of" suffice. The things that are being used as coordinates in finite geometries aren't really like natural numbers either (there's no order, for example.) . But in terms of there only being finitely many things in the field, yeah, you wouldn't need "as many" things in your system of numbers.
$endgroup$
– rschwieb
10 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Have you heard of finite geometry, as in: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_geometry ? This is geometry where there are only a finite number of points. So you don't even need rationals, natural numbers suffice.
answered 11 hours ago
quaraguequarague
621312
$endgroup$
Have you heard of finite geometry, as in: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_geometry ? This is geometry where there are only a finite number of points. So you don't even need rationals, natural numbers suffice.
answered 11 hours ago
quaraguequarague
621312
edited 10 hours ago
answered 11 hours ago
quaraguequarague
621312
answered 11 hours ago
quaraguequarague
621312
answered 11 hours ago
quaraguequarague
621312
621312
$begingroup$
Well, the natural numbers "sort of" suffice. The things that are being used as coordinates in finite geometries aren't really like natural numbers either (there's no order, for example.) . But in terms of there only being finitely many things in the field, yeah, you wouldn't need "as many" things in your system of numbers.
$endgroup$
– rschwieb
10 hours ago
add a comment |
$begingroup$
Well, the natural numbers "sort of" suffice. The things that are being used as coordinates in finite geometries aren't really like natural numbers either (there's no order, for example.) . But in terms of there only being finitely many things in the field, yeah, you wouldn't need "as many" things in your system of numbers.
$endgroup$
– rschwieb
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
Well, the natural numbers "sort of" suffice. The things that are being used as coordinates in finite geometries aren't really like natural numbers either (there's no order, for example.) . But in terms of there only being finitely many things in the field, yeah, you wouldn't need "as many" things in your system of numbers.
$endgroup$
– rschwieb
10 hours ago
$begingroup$
Well, the natural numbers "sort of" suffice. The things that are being used as coordinates in finite geometries aren't really like natural numbers either (there's no order, for example.) . But in terms of there only being finitely many things in the field, yeah, you wouldn't need "as many" things in your system of numbers.
$endgroup$
– rschwieb
10 hours ago
add a comment |
Eyal Roth is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Eyal Roth is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Eyal Roth is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Eyal Roth is a new contributor. Be nice, and check out our Code of Conduct.
Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!
- Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!
But avoid …
- Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.
- Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.
Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.
To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3174657%2fa-geometry-theory-without-irrational-numbers%23new-answer', 'question_page');
);
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Sign up or log in
StackExchange.ready(function ()
StackExchange.helpers.onClickDraftSave('#login-link');
);
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Sign up using Google
Sign up using Facebook
Sign up using Email and Password
Post as a guest
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
Required, but never shown
2
$begingroup$
A geometrically interesting subset of the real numbers are the constructible numbers, you can find some information on that on Wikipedia and read into it from there if interested. However, these also include some irrational numbers (but not all).
$endgroup$
– Dirk
11 hours ago
2
$begingroup$
Have you heard of finite geometry, as in: en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finite_geometry ? This is geometry where there are only a fintie numbre of points, hence you can assign them all natural numbers.
$endgroup$
– quarague
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
@quarague Why not add it as an answer? :)
$endgroup$
– Eyal Roth
11 hours ago
$begingroup$
Irrational numbers were discovered during the early development of geometry (finding lengths of hypotenuses of right triangles). This gives an idea how limiting such a restriction would be.
$endgroup$
– Hans Engler
11 hours ago
1
$begingroup$
@EyalRoth That is surely a matter of opinion :)
$endgroup$
– Hans Engler
11 hours ago