> 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.