On 2010-06-19, Peter Webb <webbfamily@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Tim Little" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message >> Your "simple fact" is simply wrong. Look up the definition of >> "computable real" and get back to us. > > Why?
Because you clearly don't know how a computable real is defined.
> If you believe there is an error in what I have said, identify it.
I have, many times now.
> 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.
The latter part is incorrect. It produces a real, but not a computable real. If you believe otherwise, provide a proof that the antidiagonal real is computable.
Hint: start with a statement of what you are trying to prove, i.e. the definition of a computable real.