On 17 Jan., 19:36, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote: > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> writes:
> > >> "I can prove that there exists > > according to current mathematics > >> an n which requires more than 10^80 bits > >> to name it. This n does not exist > > in reality." > > > Sorry for beeing too short for you to understand. > Here's what you wrote: > > "I can prove that there exists an n which requires more than 10^80 bits > to name it. This n does not exist." > > Now, I guess, you're saying that you meant to say something else, > namely: > > "I can prove that there exists according to current mathematics an n > ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^ > which requires more than 10^80 bits to name it. This n does not exist > in reality." > ^^^^^^^^^^ > > So, if you're saying that what you actually wrote was mistaken,
No it was not mistaken, but it is impossible to explain every detail. For instance I did not say that n is an abbreviation for a natural number and that 10^80 means a 1 with 80 zeros. Some knowledge of the reader has to be assumed. And there are always readers who fail to have this knowledge or who pretend to fail to have it.
You may maintain that quote. Most readers will recognize its correct meaning. And those who really don't are of little interest for me.