In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 22 Nov., 13:58, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Because, if you take each element from the first line, you are forming > > a union, > > In fact??? is that the way we have to conclude? > If writing in one line, I take the union? If writing, with greates > precision, the same in a new line, I don_t take the union? > Why is 0.11111 less the union of 0.11111 and all its predecessors than > 0.11111 (now written in the first line). > > You raise completely astonishing new insights. > > > and the union of infinitely many things (in this case finite > > unions) > > *is* an infinite union.- > > I thought so too. In the lines we have the union of infinitely many > things, because there are infinitely many lines. But that's not > enough? It must be one line, such that the details become blurred and > veiled?
It is not so much WM's eye-sight that is blurred as his mind-sight, which has been that way for years. --