This page is part of the web mail archives of SRFI 77 from before July 7th, 2015. The new archives for SRFI 77 contain all messages, not just those from before July 7th, 2015.
John Cowan wrote: >> [Avogadro's number is a] bad example [of an inexact integer], no >> doubt. But the current world population, though unquestionably an >> integer, is not exactly known, and it is quite plausible to say that >> it is 64########. Thomas Bushnell BSG wrote: > Yep, that's a better example indeed. ;) I don't disagree at all with > the *real* point that inexact integers have useful applications; I > agree that they do. Yeah, on second thought, it's arguable whether Avogadro's number is an inexact integer or a non-integral approximation. The population of the Earth is a better example. Likewise for the number of atoms in the canonical kilogram or the number of electrons in a cubic centimeter (which is virtually impossible to count, because of the Heisenberg's position-velocity uncertainty relationship). -- Bradd W. Szonye http://www.szonye.com/bradd