"Tim Little" <tim@little-possums.net> wrote in message news:slrni1m68o.jrj.tim@soprano.little-possums.net... > On 2010-06-18, Peter Webb <webbfamily@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: >> Because Cantor's proof requires an explicit listing. This is a very >> central concept. > > Cantor's proof works on any list, explicit or not. >
Really?
How do you apply Cantor's proof to a list constructed as follows:
"Define a list L such that the n'th entry on the list consists of all 1's if the n'th digit of Omega is 1, otherwise it is all 0's."
(Your example).
> The rest of your misconception snipped. > > > - Tim
Perhaps if you could point out to me why you believe Cantor's proof that not all Reals can be listed (as it appears you do) but you don't believe my proof that not all computable Reals can be listed. They appear identical to me.
