On Oct 30, 3:54 pm, Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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!
So what? Whatever charts you make in your day room wherever you are, the fact remains that there is no enumeration of the set of real numbers.