In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 27 Nov., 08:41, Virgil <Vir...@home.esc> wrote: > > In article > > <aa9e46c0-56da-4510-8345-8dee84745...@b2g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > > > > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > On 27 Nov., 02:50, William Hughes <wpihug...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Nov 26, 4:51 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > > > On 26 Nov., 19:22, William Hughes <wpihug...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > Only in Wolkenmuekenheim. Outside of Wolkenmuekenheim > > > > > > you will have an empty set. > > > > > > > Besides your assertion, you have arguments too, don't you? > > > > > In particular you can explain, how the empty set will emerge while > > > > > throughout the whole time the minimum contents of the vase is 1 ball? > > > > > > Since outside of Wolkenmuekenheim there is no reason to > > > > expect the number of balls to be continuous at infinity > > > > > Why then do you expect the digits of Cantor's diagonal number to be > > > "continuous" at infinity (contrary to being *not* at infinity)? > > > > Why would anyone ever expect a numerical digit to be continuous? > > > > All the ones I am aware of are members of a finite set of discrete > > objects. > > And there is none that does not belong to a rational number.
There are several that do not belong to 1/3. > > > > And why would you expect to find a digit of any sort "at infinity", when > > there is no such a position as "at infinity". > > If there is no "at infinity", then there cannot be a "behind > infinity", so there is no omega and no omega + 1.
In the set of rationals, for example, there can be "before" and an "after" without there being an "at", e.g. before and after sqrt(2). So your claim requires proofs whch tou do not have. > > In fact you are right - as so often. There is no "at infinity". The > vase is never empty.
The case starts empty, so WM is again trivially wrong.
> There is no smallest positive rational, There are > not all rationals.