> > 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. > > Yes, so?
> 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. > > MoeBlee
How would you know? You say 1 thing 1 day and the opposite the next!
An ENUMERATION is a BIGGER DATA STRUCTURE than an ENUMERABLE SET!
ENUMERATION = COUNTABLE_SET + INDEX
You haven't proven anything about ENUMERABLE (COUNTABLE SETS)