Re: how

On 6/11/2024 12:43 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

On 6/11/2024 12:41 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

On 6/10/2024 4:20 PM, Chris M. Thomasson wrote:

On 6/10/2024 4:09 PM, Moebius wrote:

[...]

I guess you mean some sort of ""reduction"" (or "filtering").
>
Actually, I've never heard about this (in a math context).

>
My programming side. ;^)
>
>

But it certainly can be defined.

>
Yup! It sure can and is interesting to me.
>
By the way... Wrt something like:
>
0.666...
>
is:
>
0.(6) better and easier to read?
>
>

Let's call this operation "nat".
>
Then
>
     nat [.5, 1, 1.5, 2, ...] = [1, 2, ...] .
>
And, say,
>
     nat [.5, 2, 1.5, 7, ...] = [2, 7, ...] .

>
>
For the filter, or refinement, yes. [.5, 2, 1.5, 7, ...] = [2, 7, ...]
>
Indeed.
>

>
Right?
>

Make any sense?

>
Sure.

>

>
Therefore:
>
nat [-.5, 8/2, 14/3, 5/2, .6(6), 4/2, -7, 5.2, 0+0i, ...] = [4, 2, ...]
>
The nat operation seems logical to me. :^)

 Or, if somebody desires to treat zero as a natural number the result would be, wrt the 0+0i element,
 [4, 2, 0, ...]
 Humm...
 

The problem I have with treating 0+0i as a zero, well... Humm... I am pondering on this. 0+0i is clearly not a natural number, however it can be treated as a 0? Perhaps even a +0 wrt sign? Which is still not a natural number... Sometimes? Argh!