Re: Computable functions/reasls: followup.
- From: Bill Taylor <w.taylor@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sun, 7 Sep 2008 22:05:23 -0700 (PDT)
On Sep 5, 10:16 pm, David C. Ullrich <dullr...@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
Which, curiously, is at this level of imprecision precisely
equivalent to what various "idiots" suggested the definition
"should" be - exactly what the standard definition "must"
be if there _was_ a standard definition, because, given that
a real is just something that can be approximated by rationals,
there's clearly nothing else the definition _could_ be.
.....which is hopefully clear to him, if no-one else.
Please Dave - try not to embarrass yourself in public.
You'll feel better for it!
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Computable functions/reasls: followup.
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: Computable functions/reasls: followup.
- References:
- Computable functions/reasls: followup.
- From: Bill Taylor
- Re: Computable functions/reasls: followup.
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Computable functions/reasls: followup.
- Prev by Date: Re: how to prove E!x(Fx & Gx) -> Ax(Fx-> Gx)
- Next by Date: Re: Applying Godel
- Previous by thread: Re: Computable functions/reasls: followup.
- Next by thread: Re: Computable functions/reasls: followup.
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
