4 ms·
I would pick Chaitin's constant. It is not only transcendantal like Pi, it is even uncomputable, so it would be part of his counterexample set. (Pi is computa
by hackandthink 4y ago
I would pick Chaitin's constant.
It is not only transcendantal like Pi, it is even uncomputable, so it would be part of his counterexample set.
(Pi is computable, so you can describe it with an algorithm (finite number of characters))
- moron4hire 4y agoBut can't Chaitin's constant be described using a finite set of symbols, those symbols being in the set [achinost'] (at least, in English)?
- tromp 4y agoSure; a simple definition is at https://tromp.github.io/cl/Binary_lambda_calculus.html#Halting_probability https://tromp.github.io/cl/Binary_lambda_calculus.html#Halti...
- hackandthink 4y agoOK, original poster doesn't speak about computable numbers: "consider the set of numbers that cannot be described using any finite collection of symbols" But I have a hard time accepting numbers, which can only be described in natural language.