| Deutsch English Français Italiano |
|
<vsng9i$27sdj$3@dont-email.me> View for Bookmarking (what is this?) Look up another Usenet article |
Path: news.eternal-september.org!eternal-september.org!.POSTED!not-for-mail From: Lawrence D'Oliveiro <ldo@nz.invalid> Newsgroups: comp.theory Subject: Re: Cantor Diagonal Proof Date: Fri, 4 Apr 2025 02:31:14 -0000 (UTC) Organization: A noiseless patient Spider Lines: 19 Message-ID: <vsng9i$27sdj$3@dont-email.me> References: <vsn1fu$1p67k$1@dont-email.me> <ec5952d44ae37dd9ffade9e423f9ed161a32389a@i2pn2.org> MIME-Version: 1.0 Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8 Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit Injection-Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2025 04:31:14 +0200 (CEST) Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a838268cadc40d8a0ecf633714aea4dd"; logging-data="2355635"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org"; posting-account="U2FsdGVkX1/odPq2xL07JP7yqxiV7oj0" User-Agent: Pan/0.162 (Pokrosvk) Cancel-Lock: sha1:UBlW11HJkVELa5+9VCxPnfoBC3Q= On Thu, 3 Apr 2025 18:50:08 -0400, Richard Damon wrote: > On 4/3/25 6:18 PM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote: >> >> The Cantor diagonal construction is an algorithm for computing an >> incomputable number. >> >> But if there is an algorithm for computing the number, then it is by >> definition a computable number. > > He shows a METHOD to generate that number, but it uses an infinite > number of steps, and shows that the number couldn't have been any of the > numbers in the original set. The definition of a “computable number” is that for any integer N, there is an algorithm that will compute digit N of the number in a finite sequence of steps. Does the Cantor diagonal construction fit this definition? Yes it does.