On 2010-06-19, Peter Webb <webbfamily@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: >> The relevant point: the *only* input to the Turing machine in the >> definition is n. The rest of the tape must is blank. Peter >> apparently believes that a number is still computable even if the >> Turing machine must be supplied with an infinite amount of input (the >> list of reals). > > No.
Oh? Then what leads you to believe that the antidiagonal of a (not necessarily recursive) list of computable reals is computable?
> Do you agree that Cantor's diagonal proof when applied to a > purported list of all computable Reals will produce a computable > Real not on the list
No, for the fifth time now. The antidiagonal of a list of all computable real is not computable. How many more times would you like me to repeat this simple and mathematically obvious statement?