On 15 Jun., 16:18, stevendaryl3...@yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > Peter Webb says... > > >"WM" <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote in message > >news:62ae795b-1d43-4e1f-8633-e5e2475851aa@x21g2000yqa.googlegroups.com... > >> On 15 Jun., 12:26, stevendaryl3...@yahoo.com (Daryl McCullough) wrote: > > >>> (B) There exists a real number r, > >>> Forall computable reals r', > >>> there exists a natural number n > >>> such that r' and r disagree at the nth decimal place. > > >> In what form does r exist, unless it is computable too? > > >Of course its computable. > > No, it's computable *relative* to the list of all computable reals. > But that list is not computable.
That is nonsense!
The list of all definitions is possible and obviously contains all definitions of real numbers.
