In article <9df240be-eaec-4d46-bd74-42868f4970ec@g19g2000yqc.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 16 Jun., 02:39, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > wrote: > > > Nevertheless your "definition" belongs to a countable set, hence it is > > > no example to save Cantors "proof". > > > > > Either all entries of the lines of the list are defined and the > > > diagonal is defined (in the same language) too. > > > > Yes. If you provide a list of Reals, then the diagonal is computable and > > does not appear on the list. > > Delicious. Cantor shows that the countable set of computable reals is > uncountable.
That would require that one can have a list of all and only the computable numbers which is already known to be impossible.
