CTK Exchange
Front Page
Movie shortcuts
Personal info
Awards
Reciprocal links
Terms of use
Privacy Policy

Interactive Activities

Cut The Knot!
MSET99 Talk
Games & Puzzles
Arithmetic/Algebra
Geometry
Probability
Eye Opener
Analog Gadgets
Inventor's Paradox
Did you know?...
Proofs
Math as Language
Things Impossible
My Logo
Math Poll
Other Math sit's
Guest book
News sit's

Recommend this site

Manifesto: what CTK is about |Store| Search CTK Buying a book is a commitment to learning Table of content Things you can find on CTK Chronology of updates Email to Cut The Knot Recommend this page

CTK Exchange

Subject: "Integers"     Previous Topic | Next Topic
Printer-friendly copy     Email this topic to a friend    
Conferences The CTK Exchange Guest book Topic #409
Reading Topic #409
Quintopia
guest
Dec-07-04, 03:10 PM (EST)
 
"Integers"
 
   The page https://www.cut-the-knot.org/do_you_know/fundamental2.shtml says something to the effect that "the integers are not closed under subtraction." What you mean is "the naturals are not closed under subtraction." Thought I might point this out to eliminate confusion.


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
alexb
Charter Member
1392 posts
Dec-07-04, 03:13 PM (EST)
Click to EMail alexb Click to send private message to alexb Click to view user profileClick to add this user to your buddy list  
1. "RE: Integers"
In response to message #0
 
   >The page
>https://www.cut-the-knot.org/do_you_know/fundamental2.shtml
>says something to the effect that "the integers are not
>closed under subtraction." What you mean is "the naturals
>are not closed under subtraction." Thought I might point
>this out to eliminate confusion.

Thank you. Long, long ago I thought it could be possible to improve the common terminology: to use "integers" for 1, 2, 3, ... and "whole numbers" for -2, -1, 0, 1, 2, ...

This page is a remnant of this intention. I hope now everything is OK.


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top
Pilar
guest
Dec-07-04, 10:06 PM (EST)
 
2. "Sorry"
In response to message #1
 
   Sorry, this has nothing to do with this conversation, but as the other is blocked, I have no choice (I guess I could just shut up, but I don't want to)but to post it here.
First of all, yes, I made a mistake, 1/3 is indeed rational, the others are not, my excuses.
Second, of course 1/3 does not equal 0.333 or so.
Then, I agree with alex in the fact that language is important, I have said so many times before here.
And finally, I would like to add that decimals are not accurate at all.
Let's calculate the square root of 2, or the e number, or our beloved friend Pi, and put them in decimals.
Besides, if one can use a fraction or the number itself, I do not understand the very existance of decimals.
And my dear bob, of course I don't expect you to carry your computer anywhere, but there's always a way to wait and do it later or something, anything is better than 3.14159.
And the theory of how thw numbers jus stop or so, well, that's either beyond my capacity of reasoning, or plainly stupid.
Once more, alex, I am sorry for this, but I just had to say it.
See you.
Pilar.


  Alert | IP Printer-friendly page | Reply | Reply With Quote | Top

Conferences | Forums | Topics | Previous Topic | Next Topic

You may be curious to visit the old Guest book.
Please do not post there.

|Front page| |Contents| |Store|

Copyright © 1996-2018 Alexander Bogomolny

[an error occurred while processing this directive]
Search:
Keywords:

Google
Web CTK

Latest on CTK Exchange
error found
Posted by kathleen styer
1 messages
04:40 PM, Mar-11-09

geometric proof
Posted by Lawrence
2 messages
06:56 PM, May-05-09

Construction in Geometry
Posted by nicoleg
0 messages
00:50 AM, May-21-09

The square root of 2 is irrational
Posted by Monty
6 messages
06:44 PM, May-21-09

An odd generalisation of prime ro ...
Posted by Derren
0 messages
04:45 PM, Mar-26-09

Trig Inequality
Posted by Bractals
0 messages
06:37 PM, May-21-09