> On Oct 30, 6:24 pm, "Peter Webb" wrote: > > > > You do claim to have a list of all Reals, don't you? > > I have a listable set of all reals. > > > 0.000000.. 0.110000.. 0.111010.. 0.111110.. ... > 0.000111.. 0.101000.. 0.000010.. 0.001100.. ... > 0.111000.. 0.010010.. 0.001010.. 0.101010.. ... > 0.111100.. 0.001011.. 0.000011.. 0.111111.. ... > ... > > > > > > You haven't specified the list yet. > > > > AHA! Peter is on the ball! > > No enumeration function! Just a good ole countable SET of all reals! > > The order is arbitrary isn't it? > > > > > > Otherwise your claim to prove anything given any ENUMER-ABLE SET > > > OF REALS clearly appears to have failed on the set provided 5 > > > times already. > > > > > Herc > > > > I made no such claim. To start off with, its nonsense. > > Nonetheless it was the topic before you took over from Moeblee. > > > 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. > > > If you do not wish to apply any mathematical approach to the given > countable set of reals, > > > > 0.000000.. 0.110000.. 0.111010.. 0.111110.. ... > 0.000111.. 0.101000.. 0.000010.. 0.001100.. ... > 0.111000.. 0.010010.. 0.001010.. 0.101010.. ... > 0.111100.. 0.001011.. 0.000011.. 0.111111.. ... > ... >
That's not a given countable set of Reals.
Its not even a list of a few Reals, or even a single Real.
Lets start with the first Real on your list. Just the first one. I don't care about the others for the time being. What is the first Real on your list?
> > > then I have nothing more to add about countable complete sets of > reals. > > Herc
