In a message dated 5/1/2002 2:28:12 AM Central Daylight Time, phma@webjockey.net writes:.i li re te'a vei re te'a fi'ure ve'o nalfrinu gi'eji'a kajbancu .iseni'ibo Puzzling as to point. As a fervent noncalculator (all theorems, no numbers), I am unclear just what "beyond calculation" means here. Not apparently, "incalculable," since even my pocket calculator gives values for both of these -- approximations, of course, but that suggests that real values are available (though infinitely long, I suppose). Somehow inadmissible, like division by 0? But again ... . Such that the distinction between fractions and not does not apply? Does any of this say that the presented proof is not a proof? |