On Nov 21, 3:13 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > On 21 Nov., 19:23, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 21, 1:57 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > On 21 Nov., 18:43, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > On Nov 21, 1:20 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > Nope. The limit of the set of digits to the left of the decimal > > > > point is not a set of digits to the right of the decimal. > > > > Of course it is not, but it does not prohibit that there are digits on > > > the right. > > > > > If we change the limit to the set of digits to the left or right of > > > > the decimal point we still get {}. {} is not a real number > > > > and does not have a reciprocal. > > > > We cannot conclude from set theory that the digits on the right of the > > > decimal point vanish. > > > Yes we can. > > No. Set theory does not destruct the set of all natural numbers. Set > theory only shows that the set can be enumerated by the set of all > even numbers, .i.e., all inidces disappear left and gather right.
