In article <email@example.com>, "Ross A. Finlayson" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> > > > > (Binary and ternary (trinary) anti-diagonal cases require refinement.) > > > > > > But as neither I nor Cantor were not dealing with numbers in any base, > > > > your objections are, as usual, irrelevant. > > > > > No, it was just noted a specific constructive counterexample to that > > > lists of (expansions representing) real numbers don't contain their > > > antidiagonals. > > > > It wasn't even that. > > > > Marshall > > In binary or ternary an everywhere-non-diagonal isn't not on the list.
What does "an everywhere-non-diagonal" mean?
And does "isn't not on the list" mean the same as "is on the list"?
In any integer base, from 2 on up, and any list, there are constructably as many non-members of the list as members of it.
> > Using AC, in ZFC, given a well-ordering of the reals
Since no one has yet been able to give an explicit well ordering of the reals, we won't give it to you.
> I described a > symmetry based construction of a distribution of the natural integers > at uniform random.