FOM: From the point of view of a classical analyst..

[Elena Nogina]

I believe, that from the point of view of a classical analyst
E.Specker uses the FACT  of the existence of r.e.  not recursive
set (for which the FACT of the existence of any enumeration
you mentioned is  sufficient).

But I have got your point.
Thank you.
Elena Nogina

friedman at math.ohio-state.edu wrote:

> Reply to ELENA NOGINA <enogina at alpha.lehman.cuny.edu>.
> >
> >
> Without looking, I assume that it uses a partial recursive enumeration

of the
> partial recursive functions, or an r.e. enumeration of the r.e. sets,
etc. This
> might be beautiful if the enumeration used is beautiful. However,
there is no
> suitably beautiful enumerations known.
>
> If Specker doesn't rely on such enumerations, then it would be nice if

you
> could sketch the construction here on the FOM e-mail list, so we can
examine
> the beauty (from the point of view of the classical analyst).