In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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.
False! One can establish the existence and properties of the real number field without ever relying on a single digit.
> Exactly the numerals, the bricks of the numbers are determined. > However, there are none, according to set theory.
Set theories such as ZFC say nothing about the existence of numerals as such, neither pro nor con. But there is nothing about numerals that is incompatible wih any settheory that I know of.
That WM does not know this is another mark of his overall mathematical incompetence.
> If set theory could not do that job, what would its application be > good for at all?
Since WM can not do that job either, what is he good for at all? --