On 6/21/07, Zefram <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
I think e has something more ambitious in mind. I didn't grasp the relevance of "computable numbers" when we're explicitly limiting this to natural numbers. But perhaps e plans to use Graham's number, or a length-17 chained arrow expression (using Conway's notation).
Oh, bother. The wikipedia article references computable reals, but there is such a thing as a non-computable natural number. -- Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> "Please let me know if there's any further trouble I can give you." -- Unknown
