In article <7f465a35-1d98-4805-9470-23790f638527@bq8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 1 Nov., 00:05, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Oct 31, 6:40 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > <snip> > > > > > Consider only the path > > > 0.000.. > > > If you construct all its finite initial segments, then you have not > > > yet the actually infinite path. > > > > correct > > > > > In order to get it, you must add > > > something,not a further node though. > > > > Correct. > > > > > What is it that you add? > > > > Another subset of the nodes, not previously used. > > A path with no last node. > > In mathematics we are used to distinguish representations of numbers > by digits or nodes only.
How about pi, e , sqr(2), and such like, which in most mathematics represent numbers without being mere digit strings of nodes.
WM must live in a very constrained and peculiar mathematical world not to have any access to e or pi or sqrt(2) and the like.
Do you agree that in that kind of mathematics > there is no application of your paths without a last node? Then we are > done, and you may stay on your path that I called matheology - but > that's my personal impression and need not disparage you. You have > just another idea of mathematics. > > Regrads, WM --
