On Oct 31, 1:37 pm, "Peter Webb" <webbfamilyDIEspam...@optusnet.com.au> wrote: > Graham Cooper wrote: > > 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? > >
0! Top left corner!
Maybe you should DEFINE what you mean by countable set before asking for one.
> > > then I have nothing more to add about countable complete sets of > > reals. > > > Herc
