| ▲ | egorelik an hour ago | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
The idea is we can't actually prove a non-computable real number exists without purposefully having axioms that allow for deriving non-computable things. (We can't prove they don't exist either, without making some strong assumptions). | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ▲ | creata an hour ago | parent [-] | |||||||||||||||||||||||||
> The idea is we can't actually prove a non-computable real number exists without purposefully having axioms that allow for deriving non-computable things. Sorry, what do you mean? The real numbers are uncountable. (If you're talking about constructivism, I guess it's more complicated. There's some discussion at https://mathoverflow.net/questions/30643/are-real-numbers-co... . But that is very niche.) The set of things we can compute is, for any reasonable definition of computability, countable. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||||||||||