In article <4c1eb4dc$0$1027$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au>, "Peter Webb" <webbfamily@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote:
> "Virgil" <Virgil@home.esc> wrote in message > news:Virgil-22B7E6.14010020062010@bignews.usenetmonster.com... > > In article > > <ccb88bb1-d8a6-4f04-bc6a-ca3346f7c8ad@c10g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, > > WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > >> On 20 Jun., 02:04, "Mike Terry" > >> > > >> > No, you're misunderstanding the meaning of computable. > >> > > >> > Hopefully you will be OK with the following definition: > >> > > >> > A real number r is computable if there is a TM (Turing machine) > >> > T which given n as input, will produce as output > >> > the n'th digit of r. > >> > >> Whatever might be the true meaning: The Turing machine need a finite > >> definition. Therefore the computable number has a finite definition. > >> > >> There are only countable many finite definitions. And every diagonal > >> of a defined Cantor list has also a finite definition. > > > > Cantor's argument does not require that any member of a list of reals be > > computable beyond a finite number of decimal places, so enough of each > > can be finitely defined for the proof to work. > > Exactly the same as mine. > > Cantor calculates the anti-diagonal to n places (for all n) using only the > first n digits of the first n items. So do I.
Technically speaking,CANTOR'S anti-diagonal argument involves only binary sequences, not real numbers at all, though the real number form of the argument is almost always attributed to him.
