On Oct 31, 6:41 am, MoeBlee <modem...@gmail.com> wrote: > My claim is not that given an enumerable set S of denumeragble binary > sequences we can constructively produce a denumerable binary sequence > not in S.
> On Oct 30, 9:18 am, MoeBlee <modem...@gmail.com> wrote: > > I just proved that given any enumerable set S of denumerable binary > > sequences there is denumerable binary sequence not in S
F&~F |- Omega
From a contradiction, any bullshit follows.
> > Again, what we claim is that there is no enumeration of the set of > real numbers. And that is proven by proving, as we do (and we do it > constructively), that given an enumeration of a set S of denumerable
Fine! We'll use a countable chart of ALL REAL NUMBERS instead!