4 ms·
The thread already went down that line of argument, you can take this comment as an response to yours: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27851171 https://new
by chmod775 5y ago
The thread already went down that line of argument, you can take this comment as an response to yours: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27851171 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27851171
- ummonk 5y agoUpthread you said: "Of course if you tried that I could immediately name you a real number, or a pair of them, for which your rule doesn't work." That is false - you're actually unable to name these numbers for which the rule doesn't work. Instead you're just insisting we accept on faith the existence of these unnamable numbers.
- btilly 5y agoAnd, as I pointed out there, that comment remains wrong. See https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27859355 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=27859355 for why.