On Tuesday, June 7, 2022 at 5:02:43 PM UTC-7, Graham Cooper wrote:
> .

There's a difference, you are talking about "completing arrays".
Obviously the "exponential word", fulfilled, is that "besides the
list of arrays each the powerset coded is enumerated", what
builds a counting machine for any counting argument -
you don't need to care about uncountability at all, only
to frame your own arguments constructively that "given
the fact that the computer resource includes this "constant-time
exponential-case completion", or a resource, that is
already not contradicted, because "countable". That
it "might as well be the real number" is still not though
that "completing arrays" in "exponential word" is the same
as "fully analyzed".

I.e. "these are for all the finite sets at least, ...".

So, while you can go on at length with "if I assumed
wrongly that all these finite cases was the infinite case,
then the theory of uncountability would contradict itself,
or vice-versa, the theory of complete-ability".

Then, pointing out for example "all these add up,
the fact they're completed not I know their order,
there won't be a word left out for a case for uncountability",
the fact there are sets, enumerated.

This whole field is called combinatorial enumeration.

It's not the most usual thing "massive computer arrays"
or "the power of infinite machines".