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