"Ross A. Finlayson" <email@example.com> writes:
> The rationals are dense in the reals. So are the irrationals, > nowhere-continuous, everywhere-dense, whose complement in the reals is > each other: given those properties, they're indistinguishable. > > There's a contradiction either way - where the construction of the > proof emphasizes one way, in vacuo, it's a plain claim. > > Then, there are reasonable definitions about our continuum of real > numbers, to establish the standard and here extra the standard, where, > the proof-theoretic constructs of the standard, do admit their own > incompleteness. > > The conscientious mathematician is interested in the limits of the > standard. Yes, the classical is perfect in the meso-scale, and as we > know, there's more to it than that, for the grandest and most sublime > of scales. > > Empty, it's as well a contradiction.
Did this honestly make any sense to you when you typed it?
Does it now?
-- "...you are around so that I have something else to do when I'm not figuring something important out. I was especially intrigued on this iteration by cursing, which I think I'll continue at some later date as it's so amusing." --- James S. Harris