So, what was the purpose of the conversation then? In the vast majority of cases, in most normal mathematical manuscripts, '3.0' is '3'. There is no distinction.
The point is to refute the claim that math never uses a bunch of computer concepts like types - those concepts all have roots in formal math theories and so the claim is false. That that theory is not of much use in the vast majority of math doesn't mean there is no math behind it.
Usually but when it matters (which is rare) the can use types.
So, what was the purpose of the conversation then? In the vast majority of cases, in most normal mathematical manuscripts, '3.0' is '3'. There is no distinction.
The point is to refute the claim that math never uses a bunch of computer concepts like types - those concepts all have roots in formal math theories and so the claim is false. That that theory is not of much use in the vast majority of math doesn't mean there is no math behind it.
1 reply →