4 hundred quadrillonth?

[Scott David Daniels]

Steven D'Aprano wrote:
> On Mon, 25 May 2009 16:21:19 +1200, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>... (0) "Opposite" is not well-defined unless you have a dichotomy. In the 
>... (1/3) Why do you jump to the conclusion that "pi=3" implies that only 
>... (1/2) If you "get rid of real numbers", then obviously you must have a 
>... (2/3) There is *no* point (2/3).
>... (1) I thought about numbering my points as consecutive increasing
> integers, but decided that was an awfully boring convention. A shiny 
> banananana for the first person to recognise the sequence.

I'd call it F_3, but using a Germanic F (Farey sequence limit 3).

Do I get a banana or one with a few more ans?

--Scott David Daniels
Scott.Daniels at Acm.Org