On 2010-06-20, Peter Webb <webbfamily@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > "Tim Little" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message >> No you couldn't, as it makes no assumption of any finite algorithm. >> Only *your* alteration of Cantor's proof assumes any sort of finite >> algorithm, as it is required for the definition of "computable real". > > I don't say anything about finite algorithms. I just ask for a list of > computable Reals, in the same form a Cantor asks for a list of Reals.
If you don't realize that "finite algorithm" is contained within the definition of "computable real" that you use, there really is no use in continuing this line of conversation any further. Goodbye.