[Haskell-cafe] Mystery of an Eq instance
davidleothomas at gmail.com
Sat Sep 21 18:50:40 CEST 2013
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
> allbery.b at gmail.com
> ballbery at sinenomine.net
> unix, openafs, kerberos, infrastructure, xmonad
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
More information about the Haskell-Cafe