"Tim Little" <tim@little-possums.net> wrote in message news:slrni1tnji.jrj.tim@soprano.little-possums.net... > On 2010-06-21, Peter Webb <webbfamily@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: >> OK, I have a list of all Reals. Which real is missing? > > Denoting your list by L, antidiag(L) is missing. If you *tell* me L, > I can verify that it is missing. Otherwise you'll have to verify it > yourself. Either way, it is missing. >
OK, you tell me your list of computable Reals, and I will verify which one is missing.
> >>>> But you have made an excellent point in your example. When Cantor is >>>> confronted with some digit as poorly defined your Chaitan's number >>>> example >>> >>> It's not poorly defined at all; it is precisely defined. >> >> No, its not precisley defined, you can't tell me its value to arbitrary >> accuracy. > > It looks like the concept of mathematical definition is also an area > of incompetence for you. Failing that, there really in no point in > continuing any further. Goodbye. >
Funny, rather than address my proof you now seem to just want to be rude.
Very crank like behaviour on your part.
If this really is goodbye, then cheerio and thanks for the (mathematical) input.
