Path: ...!weretis.net!feeder9.news.weretis.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: Mon, 14 Apr 2025 22:43:25 -0000 (UTC)
Organization: A noiseless patient Spider
Lines: 19
Message-ID: <vtk32c$295ku$6@dont-email.me>
References: <vsn1fu$1p67k$1@dont-email.me> <vso3j4$2vbn4$1@dont-email.me>
	<vso3ov$2vems$1@dont-email.me> <vso4oc$30ine$1@dont-email.me>
	<vspb09$75m8$6@dont-email.me> <vsql1k$1lpck$1@dont-email.me>
	<vsqlve$1ktm5$4@dont-email.me> <vstlr4$q280$1@dont-email.me>
	<vsvvak$36pju$5@dont-email.me>
	<4f76ca62230e22e1b4f57993da089ad7db0b1136@i2pn2.org>
	<vtagbq$vqm0$4@dont-email.me>
	<4ccbad7c2bd12827d8aa77e686de64a35ab80f67@i2pn2.org>
MIME-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 8bit
Injection-Date: Tue, 15 Apr 2025 00:43:25 +0200 (CEST)
Injection-Info: dont-email.me; posting-host="84fb5bea06fc98d4d0df182c3d5aedf4";
	logging-data="2397854"; mail-complaints-to="abuse@eternal-september.org";	posting-account="U2FsdGVkX19yggKFMYTegMRMc6vIAFWL"
User-Agent: Pan/0.162 (Pokrosvk)
Cancel-Lock: sha1:0Y/QRMm9hvaXo/NrU6euR8lRsU0=
Bytes: 2230

On Fri, 11 Apr 2025 09:35:15 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:

> On 4/11/25 3:28 AM, Lawrence D'Oliveiro wrote:
>>
>> On Mon, 7 Apr 2025 06:51:02 -0400, Richard Damon wrote:
>> 
>>> Your problem is you assume you can compute the nth value from the
>>> value of n, but that requires you master algorithm include an infinite
>>> number of algorithms in itself to choose from to build that number.
>> 
>> But the Cantor construction assumes you can construct that list. So if
>> you object to the assumption of the existence of such a list, then you
>> knock down Cantor’s proof as well.
> 
> But Cantors arguement wasn't about Computable Numbers ...

Doesn’t matter. If such a list can be assumed for the purposes of one 
proof, it can be assumed for the purposes of another. You can’t argue by 
saying it can only be used for purposes that you agree with.