>>11084554I think I'm starting to understand (even if I think all of this formalism is unnecessary). So I'm assuming you believe that L*sqrt(2) is not actually a number and that we can only approximate the symbol (whatever the nature of the symbol is, if it is not a number).
I'm sure you will agree that L*sqrt(2) is approx. 1.414*L, which is close enough to the amount of wire I need to solve my practical problem. My question is: why can you not just define the symbol L*sqrt(2) to be EQUAL to the limit of whatever algorithm we are using to approximate it? Then it can be a number in the literal sense.
