In article <4f830cc0-812e-4252-b6d8-e1c35e9e6db2@gy7g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 27 Okt., 12:04, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > <snip yet another version of your latest > > "proof" that "actual infinity" is inconsistent> > > > > Whether b_oo exists or not we have C=N=L. > > This is easily proven wrong with decimal sequences: > 0.111... has more digits than all its finite approximations. > Finite means: there are a number of 1's and then an infinite number of > 0's following. Obviously the union of all finite sequences of 1's > cannot yield a number that is larger than all finite sequences of 1's. > (If it would, then b_oo could be found in the union of all lines, > which you agreed is not the case.)
But d_oo CAN be found in the union of all diagonals of your "triangles", as it is exactly that union. --
