From pycyn@aol.com Wed May 01 06:43:03 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: Pycyn@aol.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 1 May 2002 13:43:03 -0000 Received: (qmail 72644 invoked from network); 1 May 2002 13:43:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.216) by m12.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 1 May 2002 13:43:02 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO imo-m09.mx.aol.com) (64.12.136.164) by mta1.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 May 2002 13:43:02 -0000 Received: from Pycyn@aol.com by imo-m09.mx.aol.com (mail_out_v32.5.) id r.60.1f3483e1 (2616) for ; Wed, 1 May 2002 09:42:51 -0400 (EDT) Message-ID: <60.1f3483e1.2a014ada@aol.com> Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 09:42:50 EDT Subject: Re: [lojban] cipja'o To: lojban@yahoogroups.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: multipart/alternative; boundary="part1_60.1f3483e1.2a014ada_boundary" X-Mailer: AOL 7.0 for Windows US sub 10500 From: pycyn@aol.com X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=2455001 X-Yahoo-Profile: kaliputra --part1_60.1f3483e1.2a014ada_boundary Content-Type: text/plain; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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 > li vei re te'a fi'ure ve'o te'a vei re te'a fi'ure ve'o ji'a go'i > 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? --part1_60.1f3483e1.2a014ada_boundary Content-Type: text/html; charset="US-ASCII" Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit 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
li vei re te'a fi'ure ve'o te'a vei re te'a fi'ure ve'o ji'a go'i


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? --part1_60.1f3483e1.2a014ada_boundary--