On Dec 11, 11:33 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > They *are* just the same, because your argument that above procedure > would prove an infinite string of 3's is wrong. There is neither a > natural nor a rational with an infinite string of digits. To be able > to determine every digit of a number you like does not imply that > there is a number with a never ending sequence of digits.
If your math can't handle 1/3, it is exceedingly weak. A third grader can do as much. You propose various severe restrictions on math and say that everyone else ought to adopt them, but you supply no motivation for doing so.
> Why should it??? Because Cantor believed that God knows infinite > strings? (He read it in civitate dei of St. Augustinus.) > > Or because Zermelo misunderstood Bolzana-Dedekind's definition of > infinity? Are you really thinking that infinity comes into being > because a Dr. Zermelo of Germany said so?
I don't do ancestor worship. I have never read anything of Cantor's or Zermelo's and can't see any reason to; their work has been improved upon since. If I were a doctor I wouldn't be reading nineteenth century medical papers.
The answer to your "why" question is because many good and useful results come about if I do. For example, I can handle decimal expansions of fractions such as 1/3. I know you don't like many of those results, however, coming up with results that are palatable to some guy I never met is not a goal of mine.
To get any attention to your demands, you need to supply some motivation for people to listen. Showing a contradiction would qualify, but it's been well established that you don't know how to do that.
There are, on the one hand, contradictions of the form A ^ ~A, and on the other hand results that WM doesn't like. I know you don't distinguish between these two things, but most people do, and attend only to the first. Until you also become able to make the distinction, no one has any motivation to listen to you.