On 21 Nov., 22:01, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > In article > <168832cc-10d3-4040-b710-1337ecfbc...@ib4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > And it is as easy to see that in set theory the set of indices left of > > the decimal point > > > >> > 0_2 1_1 . > > > >> > 0_2 . 1_1 > > > >> > 0_4 1_3 0_2 . 1_1 > > > >> > 0_4 1_3 . 0_2 1_1 > > > >> > 0_6 1_5 0_4 1_3 . 0_2 1_1 > > > >> > 0_6 1_5 0_4 . 1_3 0_2 1_1 > > > >> > 0_8 1_7 0_6 1_5 0_4 . 1_3 0_2 1_1 > > > >> > 0_8 1_7 0_6 1_5 . 0_4 1_3 0_2 1_1 > > > >> > ... > > has limit { }. > > While I see a point between other expressions , I do not see anything > that could be properly interpreted as a DECIMAL point.
This point is the decimal point. > > Or does WM regard such things as 1_3 and 1_5 as decimal digits?
The digit here is 1, the indexes are 3 and 5. > > And the limit of number of "positions" would be infinite on either side > of that point.
In mathematics this is true. In set theory it is false.
