In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com wrote: > On Thursday, 27 February 2014 01:48:53 UTC+1, Virgil wrote: > > In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, > > email@example.com wrote: > > > You believe that all real numbers R except a countable set D are > > > undefinable.
> > The reals are COLLECTIVELY defined
> That does not make them enumerable.
In fact, their verydefinition makes them non-numerable.
> > by the standard definition of the > > field of real numbers, but that collective definition does not guarantee > > that each of them also has an individual definition separable from other > > individual definitions of all other real numbers.
> Therefore they cannot be enumerated other than collectively by " 1 set".
WRONG AGAIN! They cannot be ennumerated at all, but they can be referred to in various separate collections, such as the set of them in some particular real interval.
> > Similarly, Given a set of naturals numbers ther must be subsets of that > > set which cannot have finite definitions because there are must be more > > such subsets than there can be finite definitions of them. > But that is not of interest
It is to me and everyone else outside of WM's wild weird world of WMytheology. > Regards, WM --