What does cognitive representability really mean?

I had a debate with Santeri Satama about the notion of number leading to the question about what cognitive representability of number could mean. This inspired writing of an articling discussing the notion of cognitive representability. Numbers in the extensions of rationals are assumed to be cognitively representable in terms of points common to real and various p-adic space-time sheets (correlates for sensory and cognitive). One allows extensions of p-adics induced by extension of rationals in question and the hierarchy of adeles defined by them.

One can however argue that algebraic numbers do not allow finite representation as do rational numbers. A weaker condition is that the coding of information about algorithm producing the cognitively representable number contains a finite amount of information although it might take an infinite time to run the algorithm (say containing infinite loops). Furthermore, cognitive representations in TGD sense are also sensory representations allowing to represent algebraic numbers geometrically (2^1/2) as the diameter of unit square). Stern-Brocot tree associated with partial fractions indeed allows to identify rationals as finite paths connecting the root of S-B tree to the rational in question. Algebraic numbers can be identified as infinite periodic paths so that finite amount of information specifies the path. Transcendental numbers would correspond to infinite non-periodic paths. A very close analogy with chaos theory suggests itself.

See the chapter Does M⁸-H duality reduce classical TGD to octonionic algebraic geometry? or the article What does cognitive representability really mean?