In article <cM-dnQvN5M9NtnvNnZ2dnUVZ_oidnZ2d@giganews.com>, fom <fomJUNK@nyms.net> wrote:
> On 1/3/2013 3:53 PM, Virgil wrote: > > In article > > <email@example.com>, > > WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > > > >> On 3 Jan., 14:52, gus gassmann <g...@nospam.com> wrote: > >> > >>> Exactly. This is precisely what I wrote. IF you have TWO *DIFFERENT* > >>> reals r1 and r2, then you can establish this fact in finite time. > >>> However, if you are given two different descriptions of the *SAME* real, > >>> you will have problems. How do you find out that NOT exist n... in > >>> finite time? > >> > >> Does that in any respect increase the number of real numbers? And if > >> not, why do you mention it here? > > > > It shows that WM considerably oversimplifies the issue of > > distinguishing between different reals, or even different names for the > > same reals. > >>> > >>> Moreover, being able to distinguish two reals at a time has nothing at > >>> all to do with the question of how many there are, or how to distinguish > >>> more than two. Your (2) uses a _different_ concept of distinguishability.- > >> > >> Being able to distinguish a real from all other reals is crucial for > >> Cantor's argument. "Suppose you have a list of all real numbers ..." > >> How could you falsify this statement if not by creating a real number > >> that differs observably and provably from all entries of this list? > > > > Actually, all that is needed in the diagonal argument is the ability > > distinguish one real from another real, one pair of reals at a time. > > > > One canonical name from another canonical name.