On 7 Feb., 08:33, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > In article > <c90e5c01-f477-420d-89c1-1ad75c5bf...@hq4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > On 7 Feb., 05:10, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > > > > The proof requires a presupposition of > > > individuated numbers named using a consistent naming algorithm > > > based on a finite set of sequentially ordered symbols. > > > Individuation by x without any means to determine the individuating x > > is not individuation. > > > You are very good in parroting undigested readings about logic. > > Now try to learn to apply the basics. > > WM is hardly in a position to carp over other people's parroting > "undigested reading about logic" or alleged" misunderstandings of the > basics".
If you are better, then explain your statement please:
> What Cantor proved was that no list of accessible real numbers > (accessible because listable) can include all accessible numbers, > because any such list itself proves the existence of numbers not listed.
What does that mean for the set of accessible numbers?