> chajadan@mail.com wrote: > > >>Nothing. It is perfectly clear that you have > strung a lot > >>of impressive sounding terms together, without any > meaning whatsoever. > >>You don't even make it to "not even wrong". > >> > >> - William Hughes > > > > > > Lack of understanding is a very convenient way to > dismiss out-of-hand. > > I hight doubt T.H.Ray came to our board spew pure > meaningless, and > > your attempts to devalidate any concept that lives > within him that > > have elements of truth only show that you never be > able to be brought > > to these truths from a source outside of you that > does not speak to > > you in terms you already understand. If you already > understood all, > > there would be no need to communicate with you. > > Actually, he does understand the terms, which is why > he can see that > there are not being used in any coherent or correct > way. Tell me, what > does "things that are not differentiable are > identical" mean? > > -- > Eric Schmidt > > -- > Posted via a free Usenet account from > http://www.teranews.com >
It is a quite well accepted physical fact, unless one can explain, e.g., how the ether differs from the vacuum. Numerical language only explains the fact, which the OP correctly interpreted without difficulty. Nothing esoteric or nonstandard here.
My point was, if the existence of a quantity called 0.9999... differs from 1.000..., it must have a context in which such can be shown. The real number line, in which the terms are identical, is not such a context. Measure is itself not a simple concept.
