On 2010-06-20, Peter Webb <webbfamily@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Tim Little" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message >> 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.
No, it merely assumes that such a digit exists.
> This is not quite as strong as being re, but it is close.