"Peter Webb" <webbfamilyDIEspamDie@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message news:email@example.com... > LudovicoVan wrote: >> "Peter Webb" <webbfamilyDIEspamDie@optusnet.com.au> wrote in message >> news:firstname.lastname@example.org... >> >> > 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.
But you have just asked what "w" and "m" are supposed to mean, remember? That's why I call you (and co., don't take it personally as it isn't) parrots etc.: because you are just right, whatever kind of bollocks you might say, in the end you are still right. By dogma, and the guns.
>> > 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. > > 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).
Indeed, to be precise, you and co. excel in not even being wrong.
> So, where is your list of all the Reals?
The real numbers are a subset of the surreals. But I had said that already. Of course they are countable: there just is no such thing as a number that is not a number: a number is all we can do with it seriously (you won't get this, but never mind).
Well, maybe it's not dogma, it's just that you cannot read... But no, I am not optimistic about anybody's intellectual honesty around here: except maybe for Prof. Magidin, who at least shows some good math.