> No, of course not. Again, you need to read everything > in context of the claims. There is much more to > Cantor's theory than this simple proposition. The OP's > claim depends on a geometrical interpretation of the > difference between 0.999... and unity. If the CH > is true, no such interpretation is possible. If the > CH is not used, the OP's terms are not differentiable.
> The CH was used in my explanation to illustrate the > rules of geometrical constraint, betweeness as Weyl > referred to it. Cantor's theory teaches us that there > is no abstract betweenness, and real analysis teaches > us that limit functions produce real results. Then the > OP's proposition has no harbor--we are either talking > about measured real results, or not. Any proof of his > claim would have to incorporate measured real results, > and when attempted would necessarily show the > equivalence of his terms; i.e. things that are not > differentiable are identical.
That's an impressive buzzword generator you have there.