"Tim Little" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message news:email@example.com... > On 2010-06-19, Peter Webb <webbfamily@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: >> Of course it is computable. Cantor provides a simple construction >> for the number. > > Only if the list itself is a recursively enumerable function. > Cantor's proof makes no such assumption. >
Yes it does. It requires that the nth digit of the nth term can be calculated. This is not quite as strong as being re, but it is close. In any event, it is exactly the same restriction as I place on the purported list of all computable Reals.