Timeline for Etymology of “real numbers"
Current License: CC BY-SA 4.0
10 events
| when toggle format | what | by | license | comment | |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Apr 23 at 17:09 | vote | accept | Paul Talma | ||
| Apr 10 at 13:19 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | @WillBrian, the negatives were not considered "genuine numbers" until quite late; I believe in Cauchy one still finds discussions of signs that make it appear that the negatives are "false" somehow :-) | |
| Apr 10 at 13:15 | comment | added | Will Brian | @MikhailKatz: Thanks Mikhail. I was wondering what the "false ones" might mean. (As I mentioned in my comment, I do not speak French.) | |
| Apr 10 at 13:02 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | @WillBrian, as explained there on page 41, "false" means "negative". | |
| Apr 10 at 12:57 | comment | added | Will Brian | For anyone else on here as ignorant of French as I am, here is the translation that google gave me: "Moreover, both the true roots and the false ones are not always real, but sometimes only imaginary." | |
| Apr 10 at 12:47 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
deleted 1 character in body
|
| Apr 10 at 12:32 | comment | added | Mikhail Katz | The fact that real numbers were known before Descartes (though not under that name) is significant. | |
| Apr 10 at 12:30 | history | edited | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 4.0 |
added 311 characters in body
|
| Apr 10 at 12:12 | comment | added | Sam Hopkins | Only the first sentence of this answer has anything to do with the question asked (and this fact was also mentioned in the first comment, with references). | |
| Apr 10 at 7:08 | history | answered | Mikhail Katz | CC BY-SA 4.0 |