4 ms·
Oh, I see, you're addressing the "we don't need uncountable sets" statement by giving examples of intuitively obvious things which are uncountable. But I think
by waqf 10y ago
Oh, I see, you're addressing the "we don't need uncountable sets" statement by giving examples of intuitively obvious things which are uncountable. But I think OP's claim is that we don't "need" those things because we could do mathematics with the set of Turing machines instead of the set of functions, etc.
- yequalsx 10y agoYes, but can Turing machines do enough mathematics? The second order Peano Axioms are categorical and the first order axioms are not. The Incompleteness Theorem tells us that there are statements that are true in the standard model of N that are not provable by a Turing Machine.