On 2010-06-20, Peter Webb <webbfamily@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: > I can't see how the move from addition of "computable" in front of "Reals" > requires any additional substitution in my "definition of a list".
It's not just "definition of a list" in Cantor's proof. It's definition of a "list of reals". If you change that to "list of computable reals", then of course the definition changes.
> I still can't accept that you are providing a list of computable > Reals when you aren't even telling me what the first one actually > is. That's cheating.
I provide a mathematical definition for it. That is more than required, as Cantor's proof applies even to *undefinable* lists of reals. And yes, it is easily proven that there exist undefinable lists of computable reals.
So if it is "cheating", it is only according to rules that never existed in the first place.