No, that can't be the point, because Slow_Dog specifically states that the article should show how to find a binary string of length 5 that isn't contained in a list of six such strings:
> It shows how you can find a binary string that's not in the list; fine. But it's conveniently a list of 5 strings of length 5. It doesn't show how you'd find a new string of length 5 that's not in a list of 6 such strings, or 31 such strings.
The reason it's not showing that is that it's showing an example of diagonalization. Slow_Dog would apparently prefer that the article about diagonalization discuss some other technique than diagonalization.
> It shows how you can find a binary string that's not in the list; fine. But it's conveniently a list of 5 strings of length 5. It doesn't show how you'd find a new string of length 5 that's not in a list of 6 such strings, or 31 such strings.
The reason it's not showing that is that it's showing an example of diagonalization. Slow_Dog would apparently prefer that the article about diagonalization discuss some other technique than diagonalization.