"Tim Little" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message news:email@example.com... > On 2010-06-21, Peter Webb <webbfamily@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: >> "Tim Little" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message >>> On 2010-06-21, Peter Webb <webbfamily@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> wrote: >>>> No, I only need a finite algorithm which will calculate it to n >>>> decimal places with finite input. >>> >>> You have previously stated that you can do this with "about three >>> lines of Java code". >>> >>> Here's your Java method signature: int antidiagonalDigit(BigInteger n). >>> >>> Here are the first twenty digits of the first twenty members of my >>> list: >>> >>> 93525532854532512838 >>> 32127313472944276266 >>> 70595916184994935423 >>> 20733652719572401688 >>> 30472031767118774150 >>> 47190325821263633948 >>> 74236814853458351851 >>> 58521903865615844550 >>> 91701104659863267390 >>> 39510921669610680229 >>> 19656091025330568974 >>> 49591084533660072011 >>> 81683520683673830124 >>> 93720622611168810054 >>> 50284245443806050152 >>> 11702670934156383526 >>> 58534679962278312978 >>> 68478827933494896765 >>> 83579375050000862329 >>> 50241229144880453593 >>> >>> Now let's see your Java code. >> >> Here is my p-code. > > As I suspected, your claim that you could actually do it was pure > puffery, and you probably know as little about programming as you do > about mathematics. > > >> Take the nth digit of the nth item. > > The n'th item of *what*?
The list. Of computable Reals. That is supposed to include all Computable Reals.
> The list is not a parameter, it is not a > global variable, it is completely out of scope. You fail already. > >
Actually, Cantor's proof starts with a purported list of all Reals, and then shows that at least one Real is missing.
It assumes that a list exists, then shows a Real is missing. If you didn't supply the list in advance, he wouldn't be able to construct a Real missing from the list. In fact, if you don't say what is on the list, it you can't prove soimething is missing from it. There is no Real which is missing from every list, but every list misses at least one Real.
You do believe Cantor's original proof that the Reals cannot be listed, don't you?