In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 7 Feb., 09:10, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Feb 7, 9:00 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > What does that mean for the set of accessible numbers? > > > > That this potentially infinite set is not listable. > > Here we stand firm on the grounds of set theory. > > Once upon a time there used to be a logocal identity: The expression > "Set X is countable" used to be equivalent to "Set X can be listed". > WM himself has long since rejected that equivalency, at least in WMytheology, so now WM wishes to resurrect it?
And while we can list many accessible numbers, I, at least, do not hold that we can list all of them together. --