How I understood it, and please correct me if i am wrong, is that a machine than can caluclate numbers with infinite precision in constant time has certainly a time benefit, but not necessarily a broader class of computable functions compared to a Turing machine. I interpreted z3phyr’s reference to Wikipedia as a hint to that idea. But I agree that the most convincing arguments are against the existence of such a machine.
(By the way, writing "No.\n\n" can be received as a rude response. I felt a little bit uncomfortable reading it.)
(By the way, writing "No.\n\n" can be received as a rude response. I felt a little bit uncomfortable reading it.)