Path: utzoo!attcan!uunet!cbmvax!vu-vlsi!swatsun!rice
From: rice@cs.swarthmore.edu (Dan Rice)
Newsgroups: comp.lang.c
Subject: Re: 0.1
Message-ID: <2143@tulum.cs.swarthmore.edu>
Date: 15 Oct 88 18:56:46 GMT
References: <836@proxftl.UUCP> <3105@hubcap.UUCP> <1700@dataio.Data-IO.COM> <6928@dasys1.UUCP> <13983@mimsy.UUCP>
Reply-To: rice@tulum.UUCP (Dan Rice)
Organization: SUN Lab, Swarthmore College, PA
Lines: 16

In article <13983@mimsy.UUCP> chris@mimsy.UUCP (Chris Torek) writes:
>If you want to get *really* ridiculous, 0.1 is irrational in irrational
>bases, but I am not sure those count :-) .  But Tom Neff is right (and
>I missed that error in my first followup).
>-- 
>In-Real-Life: Chris Torek, Univ of MD Comp Sci Dept (+1 301 454 7163)
>Domain:	chris@mimsy.umd.edu	Path:	uunet!mimsy!chris

	0.1 may have a non-repeating representation in some irrational bases,
but it is certainly rational regardless of how one chooses to write it...

-- 
- Dan Rice, Swarthmore College, Swarthmore PA 19081
  UUCP: ...!seismo!bpa!swatsun!rice, ...!sun!liberty!swatsun!rice
BITNET: rice%cs.swarthmore.edu@swarthmr.bitnet
 CSNET: rice@cs.swarthmore.edu