>>34
The first smart point you've made so far. Replace 0 with 1/3.
>>33
"Well, guess what? Then [sqrt(2) is] not computable."
If your argument relies on redefining "computable," then there isn't any point in carrying on with this discussion, and if you're claiming that sqrt(2) is not computable under the accepted definition then please provide a proof of this. You keep repeating that sqrt(2) is not computable but can be calculated to any degree by a (single) Turing machine - that is EXACTLY WHAT COMPUTABLE MEANS.