[ncfausti]

I think that’s why the author put “vector” in quotes. I kind of imagine it as an ephemeral, infinite list where for some real, when we use that real value as an index into our “vector”/function, we get the output value as the item in this infinite, ephemeral list.

I think the only thing that matters is that the indices have an ordering (which the reals obviously do) and they aren’t irrational (i.e. they have a finite precision).

Imagine you have a real number, say, e.g. 2.4. What stops us from using that as an index into an infinite, infinitely resizable list? 2.4^2 = 5.76. Depending on how fine-grained your application requires you could say 2.41 (=5.8081) is the next index OR 2.5 (=6.25) is the next index we look at or care about.

I could be misunderstanding it, though.

[a57721]

A vector is always a vector -- an element of something that satisfies the axioms of a vector space. The author starts with the example of R^n, which is a very particular vector space that is finite-dimensional and comes with a "canonical" basis (0,...,1,...,0). In general, a basis will always exist for any vector space (using the axiom of choice), but there is no need to fix it, unless you do some calculations. The analogy with R^n is the only reason the "indices" are mentioned, and I think this only creates more confusion.

> and they aren’t irrational (i.e. they have a finite precision)

No, if you want only rational "indices", then your vector space has a countable basis. Interesting vector spaces in analysis are uncountably infinite dimensional. (And for this reason the usual notion of a basis is not very useful in this context.)

[Natsu]

> and they aren’t irrational (i.e. they have a finite precision).

I'm not sure if I'm misunderstanding what you mean by 'finite precision' but the ordinary meaning of those words would seem to limit it to rational numbers?

[zozbot234]

In practice you're always computing with finite precision. (Even computing with symbolic expressions is just a preliminary step to what's ultimately a numerical result with finite precision.) The whole point of real numbers is to abstract away from detailed considerations of precision, and figure out what happens if you only ever care about putting satisfactory bounds on the output and are willing to bound your input to the extent required.

[Natsu]

What is the benefit of using R if it's really Q?

[zozbot234]

The idea of R is that it allows you to reason about things like "I need more than X input precision to achieve Y bound on my output". Just sticking with naïve computation in Q does not suffice for that.