But floating-point notation also can’t precisely represent irrational numbers…
Following Pythagoreanism and believing irrational numbers to be blasphemous. They’re represented by being struck down by the gods.
Kinda. Technicaly no since an irrational number is a number that cannot be defined as a ratio of 2 existing rational numbers. Any number that can be represented in any rational base can by definition be represented as a ratio of somthing/base^n. This ignore the case of an irrational base but its practically useless cos any rational and most other irrational numbers will be irrational.
What u think ur trying to say is that some numbers cannot be represented in one base but can in another for example 1/3 can be represented as a decimal in base 3 but cannot jn base 10 ie u get 0.333(3 repeating forever).
Tieing back to floating point which uses base 2 u end up with simmillar issues with base10 base2 conversions hence most of the errors with floating point errors (yes at very large and very small numbers u lose accuracy but in practice most errors arise from base convention).
