On Oct 30, 11:52 am, "Peter Webb" <webbfamilyDIEspam...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > Graham Cooper wrote: > > > > What about an enumerable set of all reals? > > > > > The first one is 0.000000... > > > > > Is that OK? > > > > > Herc > > > > No. You have to provide a list of all Reals in [0,1) > > > > Can't do it? > > > > Do you wonder why? > > > TAKES 5 MINUTES YOU * C O W A R D * > > > WHAT IS MISSING? > > 0.000000.. 0.110000.. 0.111010.. 0.111110.. ... > > 0.000111.. 0.101000.. 0.000010.. 0.001100.. ... > > 0.111000.. 0.010010.. 0.001010.. 0.101010.. ... > > 0.111100.. 0.001011.. 0.000011.. 0.111111.. ... > > ... > > > Try to use Cantor's method and you fail! > > > Herc > > I can't see what the "..." is supposed to mean. Could you provide the > formula which tells me the Real in position n for all n, so I can step > through the list and see what is missing?
WHAT IS MISSING? 0.000000.. 0.000111.. 0.111000.. 0.111100.. ...
