On Jun 18, 6:09 pm, Tim Little <t...@little-possums.net> wrote: > On 2010-06-18, Peter Webb <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > > > The number that is produced is clearly "computable", because we have > > computed it. > > I see you still haven't consulted a definition of "computable number". > No worries, let me know when you have.
I suggest it would be more persuasive if you made whatever point you have in mind about the definition of computable number directly. Simply repeating this one-liner makes it seem like you might not have a point.