> "Peter Webb" <webbfamilyDIEspamDie@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message > news:email@example.com... > > > As you haven't told us what "w" and "m" are supposed to be, or the > > rule that you are using to form the list, this cannot be done. > > Parrot, at least read bloody Cantor's argument before pontificating > your dogma. >
I have. And its not dogma.
> > If you think you have a list of all Reals, post it here, and I will > > happily prove its not a list of all Reals by finding a Real not on > > the list for you. > > But you can do no such thing: the anti-diagonal is just not a real > number. > > -LV
Of course it is a Real number. It is the limit of a Cauchy sequence. You do know that convergent Cauchy sequences define unique Reals, right?
(I just bagged somebody for providing a proof of the anti-diagonal was Real using Cauchy sequences, on the basis that no crank disputes whether the anti-diagonal is Real. And then you prove me wrong by raising exactly this isuue).