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 everything-list+unsubscr...@googlegroups.com. To view this discussion on the web visit https://groups.google.com/d/msgid/everything-list/41bf9334-9453-4f2c-a678-762455d353c5%40googlegroups.com.
