In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> Am Dienstag, 10. Dezember 2013 17:50:00 UTC+1 schrieb wpih...@gmail.com:
> > You have claimed many times that there is a list of all > > constructable real numbers.
> No. Never. Since there is no "all numbers" of any infinite kind.
WM may have the power to limit his WMytheological world this way, but has no power of any kind outside of it.
n a set that can be listed.
> > You should consider what > > your admission that this list must be non-constructable > > means (Note you cannot have non-constructable lists withou > > non-constructable numbers).
> They would not help because only constructable numbers are under > consideration.
WRONG! All listable numbers are allowed without any restraint on their alleged constructability.
> But at present I assume the existence of a list of all rational numbers.
> (Also that is nonsense, but we assume it like assuming that there is a > largest prime number in order to contradict it.)
Except WM never manages to contradict it.
> This list exist in "matheology".
And everywhere outside of WM's wild weird world of WMytheology, that is ore correctly spelled "mathematics"
> And it leads to the contradiction that every rational number > provably differs from the antidiagonal d but the antidiagonal provably does > not differ from all rational numbers.
WHile that first claImed proof is ALSO valid outside of WMytheology, the second one is not, and i have yet to see any argument for it that is even close to valid, even within the corruption of WMytheology.
> Some matheologians want to make us > believe that that is not a contradiction, but obviously it is.
What WM claim to be obvious to him, is far to often provably fas\lse in the wider world of actual mathetmatics.
> Nevertheless I do not even attack this nonsensical claim but only state: > There is no sequence of digits that allows to distinguish d from all rational > numbers. That is all I claim.
And outside of WM's wild weird world of WMytheology, it is provably false, and has frequently been so proven,.