3 ms·
There's nothing special about the definition. Use any construction you like, but do it over a countable model of set theory[1]. Now you have a countable set of
by MichaelBurge 10y ago
There's nothing special about the definition. Use any construction you like, but do it over a countable model of set theory[1]. Now you have a countable set of real numbers, although there is no correspondence between it and the natural numbers within the model. The statement that 'there is an uncountable set' is also provable, although the set is countable. It's one of those Goedelian tricks, like the statement that is proven true but is unprovable.
That said, I prefer to say that only real numbers that can be emitted by computer programs exist.
[1] Use the Downward Lowenheim-Skolem theorem to get a countable set theory, and choose something like ZFC as your set theory.
- rntz 10y agoI think you are confusing the object-level and the meta-level (and incidentally confusing everyone who doesn't know advanced set theory). In any case, if you want to talk about the computable reals, then call them computable reals. Don't say "reals" for "computable reals", even if you think the former don't exist. Unicorns don't exist either, but that doesn't justify defining "unicorn" as "a horse".