Path: ...!news.tomockey.net!news.samoylyk.net!news.quux.org!eternal-september.org!feeder3.eternal-september.org!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 06:16:56 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 9
Message-ID: <vsntgo$2osdn$2@dont-email.me>
References: <vsn1fu$1p67k$1@dont-email.me>
	<7EKdnTIUz9UkpXL6nZ2dnZfqn_ednZ2d@brightview.co.uk>
	<2318243ce57284ba469fcbf7270590c9e65929c3.camel@gmail.com>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Fri, 04 Apr 2025 08:16:56 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="a838268cadc40d8a0ecf633714aea4dd";
	logging-data="2912695"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX183aA/XgAkZGzGiemBM0h2b"
User-Agent: Pan/0.162 (Pokrosvk)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:1s7kGiozZil0ptdm79Cw/lEag68=
Bytes: 1401

On Fri, 04 Apr 2025 13:37:25 +0800, wij wrote:

> If we say the 'real number' in the diagonal construction is rational
> number, it will also fits the description.

No, that’s too restrictive. It doesn’t have to be rational to be 
computable.

For example, π is a computable number. But it is provably not rational.