Can this post be closed as a dupe of[ this 2014 post?. There was another post repeating the same theme. In the most recent case the OP seems not to understand the difference between uncountable sets, and one member of an uncountable set. Users have assumed the OP means "computable," instead of "countable".

@quid, since you are here now, could you take a look? (you may have left, no problem). It's not a huge deal; I voted to close before realizing it is a dupe.

@amWhy I'm not sure that's an ideal dupe for that and thus prefer not to get involved in this and override 4 pending votes.

@quid No problem. I did not know there were four pending votes. But other users put computability into that askers mouth. They've likely since edited to fully steal the question they answered.

@amWhy no one edited the question at all.

Then why are users overwhelmingly presuming the OP means computability. The reason I linked the question I did was because there have been at least four times on this site where people mix the terms up. But I appreciate your looking at the question, and I respect your decision.

The question mentions an algorithm.

The question asserts "Therefore, irrational numbers that have an algorithm must be countable too. And since I doubt that there is a number that cannot be calculated. I assume that all irrational numbers are countable."

People now try to explain that "I doubt that there is a number that cannot be calculated" is actually wrong and that in fact there is a name for those numbers that can be calculated.

It's very possible that this came up in the past already.

But if it is closed as a duplicate then it should be closed as a dupe of something that talks about this particular aspect.

The question is not super-precise but that's somewhat acceptable for a question that ultimately is about a concept OP does not know about and this ignorance being the root cause of the question.

c

@jasmine wrong room

@quid I respect that, @quid. I was not insincere. Yes, the algorithm was mentionrf, and it makes me wonder if the earlier question today about a formula for the digits of pi influenced the question, if the OP took that to mean an algorithm existed. But everyone there like you and me, are speculating, since the OP failed to offer sufficient context.

@amWhy that's possible.

oh , sorry @amWhy

@jasmine I complained.

@jasmine It's only @quid that has the blank face, though we both are blue. :-)

New nickname for quid: Blank Face quid, aka, BFQ.

@amWhy I'll read it as Best Friend :-)

@quid :-)