Well, I appear to be somewhat confused. Here is the logic that I'm using so far:

If:

1: A hypothesis space can contain mathematical constants,

2: Those mathematical constants can be irrational numbers,

3: The hypothesis space allows those mathematical constants to set to any irrational number,

4: And the set of irrational numbers cannot be ennumerated.

Then:

5: A list of hypothesis spaces is impossible to enumerate.

So If I assume 5 is incorrect (and that it is possible to enumerate the list) I seem to either have put together something logically invalid or one of my premises is wrong. I would suspect it is premise 3 because it seems to be a bit less justifiable then the others.

On the other hand, it's possible premise 3 is correct, my logic is valid, and this is a rhetorical question where the answer is intended to be "That's impossible to enumerate."

I think the reason that I am confused is likely because I'm having a hard time figuring out where to proceed from here.