"Tim Little" <email@example.com> wrote in message news:firstname.lastname@example.org... > On 2010-06-19, Peter Webb <webbfamily@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: >> That, BTW, is my own interpretation of what is happening. > > It is an incorrect interpretation. > > >> Whether you accept this or not, the simple fact is that Cantor's >> proof can be applied to any purported list of all computable Reals >> and used to generate a computable Real not on the list > > Your "simple fact" is simply wrong. Look up the definition of > "computable real" and get back to us. >
If you believe there is an error in what I have said, identify it.
Or give me at least a hint. As a start, my argument rests on two observations:
1. Cantor's diagonal construction, when applied to a purported list of all computable Reals, will produce a computable Real not on the list. Therefore you cannot provide a list of all computable numbers.