Date: Feb 8, 2013 6:26 AM
Author: Alan Smaill
Subject: Re: Matheology § 210

fom <fomJUNK@nyms.net> writes:

> On 2/7/2013 7:54 AM, WM 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".
>
> Incorrect.
>
> Cantor understood that for a collection to be a
> set, there was an underlying canonical well-ordered
> form.

What about the real numbers?


-- 
Alan Smaill