In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 16 Jun., 18:07, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...@uta.fi> wrote: > > Herman Jurjus <hjm...@hetnet.nl> writes: > > > Also many classical mathematicians appreciate this as an example > > > showing that the extensional notion 'Turing computable' is a slight > > > distortion of the intuitive notion 'computable'. > > > > Possibly, but I don't think this is quite the right diagnosis. The issue > > is more subtle. > > The issue is very simple. A real number is computable, if its place on > the real axis can be established, i.e., trichotomy. Otherwise it does > not deserve the name number but at most number form or interval (like > 0.1x means 0.10 to 0.19 in decimal).
WM is free to restrict such meanings for his own use, but only for his own use, since when others use the same terms, they cannot be constrained to use them in ways foreign to themselves.