On 6/21/07, Taral <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
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.
What do you mean by "computable natural number"? In the sense meant
by "computable real number", all natural numbers are trivially
computable. I can envision that a natural number might be called
computable if it is the Godel number of a computable function or set,
but that's not a usage I'm familiar with.
-root
