On 23 Nov., 03:33, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > In article > <addf68fc-fef6-4d32-9962-158449bcb...@e25g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>, > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > No, yours is a much more difficult case. That's why I conceived the > > simplest case. > > WM does not conceive at all that there are TWO SEPARATE SEQUENCES > involved, which quite properly behave differently. > > The real number case involves a single strictly increasing and unbounded > sequence of distinct real numbers, which involves one form of limiting > process. > > The set of digits case involves two disjoint sequences of sets of > digits, each of which
is required to establish and construct the real numbers of analysis. Exactly the numerals, the bricks of the numbers are determined. However, there are none, according to set theory.
If set theory could not do that job, what would its application be good for at all?