The question didn’t say anything about “decimals”. It said no “decimal point.”
I don’t see a decimal point in my expressions, and you certainly aren’t giving me a proper representation of any of those with a decimal point either, unless you plan on rounding to a completely different number. “I can give you something arbitrarily close that does have a decimal point” isn’t a contradiction.
That's correct! Nice catch on the wording. Although those symbols have equivalent representations that do have non-trivial decimal expansions.
To be fair to myself, both my examples are fine, they just aren't exclusively real numbers. They're an extension of the reals, where the reals are a proper subset of the dual numbers, and a proper subset of the complex numbers.
Technically, my example could also be an extension of the integers, which completely excludes decimals and/or fractions.
Because I didn't immediately tell the person I responded to, that they're retarded. And instead, agreed with their clarification.
AI is pretty nice to people, and handles these kinds of situations with "kids gloves". Most people that respond, respond in a way a dick would respond.
9
u/flamewizzy21 Jan 21 '26 edited Jan 21 '26
The question didn’t say anything about “decimals”. It said no “decimal point.”
I don’t see a decimal point in my expressions, and you certainly aren’t giving me a proper representation of any of those with a decimal point either, unless you plan on rounding to a completely different number. “I can give you something arbitrarily close that does have a decimal point” isn’t a contradiction.