Not signed in (Sign In)

Start a new discussion

Not signed in

Want to take part in these discussions? Sign in if you have an account, or apply for one below

  • Sign in using OpenID

Discussion Tag Cloud

Vanilla 1.1.10 is a product of Lussumo. More Information: Documentation, Community Support.

Welcome to nForum
If you want to take part in these discussions either sign in now (if you have an account), apply for one now (if you don't).
    • CommentRowNumber1.
    • CommentAuthorUrs
    • CommentTimeSep 28th 2012

    I looked at real number and thought I could maybe try to improve the way the Idea section flows. Now it reads as follows:

    A real number is something that may be approximated by rational numbers. Equipped with the operations of addition and multiplication induced from the rational numbers, real numbers form a number field, denoted \mathbb{R}. The underlying set is the completion of the ordered field \mathbb{Q} of rational numbers: the result of adjoining to \mathbb{Q} suprema for every bounded subset with respect to the natural ordering of rational numbers.

    The set of real numbers also carries naturally the structure of a topological space and as such \mathbb{R} is called the real line also known as the continuum. Equipped with both the topology and the field structure, \mathbb{R} is a topological field and as such is the uniform completion of \mathbb{Q} equipped with the absolute value metric.

    Together with its cartesian products – the Cartesian spaces n\mathbb{R}^n for natural numbers nn \in \mathbb{N} – the real line \mathbb{R} is a standard formalization of the idea of continuous space. The more general concept of (smooth) manifold is modeled on these Cartesian spaces. These, in turnm are standard models for the notion of space in particular in physics (see spacetime), or at least in classical physics. See at geometry of physics for more on this.

    • CommentRowNumber2.
    • CommentAuthorjin
    • CommentTimeSep 11th 2020

    Provide sketch of the content of the paper.

    diff, v49, current

    • CommentRowNumber3.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeSep 11th 2020

    Moved the Pavlovic–Vaughan reference to the reference section, cited it, gave link to the published version, and put proper TeX syntax on the additions.

    But I’m not sure of this sentence:

    \ldots the result is simply the stream of \mathbb{N}: ×××\mathbb{N}\times \mathbb{N}\times \mathbb{N}\times \ldots, which obviously can be identified with the real number set.

    Really? Is it so obvious that this infinite product can be so identified?

    diff, v50, current

    • CommentRowNumber4.
    • CommentAuthorMike Shulman
    • CommentTimeSep 11th 2020

    Looks more like Baire space to me.

    • CommentRowNumber5.
    • CommentAuthorDavidRoberts
    • CommentTimeSep 12th 2020

    I agree.

Add your comments
  • Please log in or leave your comment as a "guest post". If commenting as a "guest", please include your name in the message as a courtesy. Note: only certain categories allow guest posts.
  • To produce a hyperlink to an nLab entry, simply put double square brackets around its name, e.g. [[category]]. To use (La)TeX mathematics in your post, make sure Markdown+Itex is selected below and put your mathematics between dollar signs as usual. Only a subset of the usual TeX math commands are accepted: see here for a list.

  • (Help)