> On 15 Jun., 19:27, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote: >> WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> writes: >> > On 15 Jun., 16:23, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...@uta.fi> wrote: >> >> "Peter Webb" <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> writes: >> >> > So (B) is equivalent to the statement "there exists an uncomputable >> >> > number". >> >> >> Right. But why then did you say the number was computable? >> >> > And in what form does it exist? >> >> This question seems utterly meaningless. > > That may be the impression of cranks who prefer believing things > rather than knowing them. > If someone says that somethings exists, then he should be able to > explain what that means. > For numbers existence is easily proved by giving the value. For > uncomputable numbers the existence-question is justified.
Funny how you snipped the rest of my post. I invite you to answer it.
In what form does the barbecue pork bun I'm eating exist?
To be fair, that bun does not exist any longer, but let's pretend I'm still eating it. In what form does it exist? What answer would one give?
-- "So yeah, do the wrong math, and use the ring of algebraic integers wrong, without understanding its quirks and real mathematical properties, and you can think you proved Fermat's Last Theorem when you didn't." -- James S. Harris on hobbies