On Saturday, September 28, 2019 at 4:18:58 AM UTC-5, Alan Grayson wrote: > > > *You must have a special definition of "computable number". As I see it, > other than PI, e, and possibly a few other irrational numbers, no computer > can fully compute any of them, which have the cardinality of the > continuum. You can't even define those numbers so how the heck can you > compute them? You could take a string representing some rational number, > and then insert digits randomly, to produce an approximation of some > irrational number. It will always be an approximation since your program > will never halt. And how will you define that random string you're > inserting without referencing some quantum measurements, say of spin? AG* > >> >> >>
Books on computability theory are all wrong: They are based on Platonism. In contrast, *real computability* takes the world as it really is, https://codicalist.wordpress.com/2018/09/30/real-computationalism/ *Real computing is computing voided of Platonism.* @philipthrift -- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "Everything List" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/41bf9334-9453-4f2c-a678-762455d353c5%40googlegroups.com.
