From phma@webjockey.net Wed May 01 06:57:08 2002 Return-Path: X-Sender: phma@ixazon.dynip.com X-Apparently-To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Received: (EGP: mail-8_0_3_1); 1 May 2002 13:57:08 -0000 Received: (qmail 1147 invoked from network); 1 May 2002 13:57:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (66.218.66.217) by m14.grp.scd.yahoo.com with QMQP; 1 May 2002 13:57:08 -0000 Received: from unknown (HELO neofelis.ixazon.lan) (208.150.110.21) by mta2.grp.scd.yahoo.com with SMTP; 1 May 2002 13:57:07 -0000 Received: by neofelis.ixazon.lan (Postfix, from userid 500) id 168DF3C476; Wed, 1 May 2002 09:56:58 -0400 (EDT) Content-Type: text/plain; charset="iso-8859-1" To: lojban@yahoogroups.com Subject: Re: [lojban] cipja'o Date: Wed, 1 May 2002 09:56:57 -0400 X-Mailer: KMail [version 1.2] References: <60.1f3483e1.2a014ada@aol.com> In-Reply-To: <60.1f3483e1.2a014ada@aol.com> X-Spamtrap: fesmri@ixazon.dynip.com MIME-Version: 1.0 Message-Id: <02050109565706.02045@neofelis> Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Sender: phma@ixazon.dynip.com From: Pierre Abbat X-Yahoo-Group-Post: member; u=92712300 On Wednesday 01 May 2002 09:42, pycyn@aol.com wrote: > 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? I meant "transcendental". What's the right word? I don't know the proof; I just saw it stated on Wikipedia. Finding out that the number is irrational does not invalidate the proof. phma