On 23 Nov., 08:15, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > In article > <56887e9f-687a-4adc-9860-5699c4e90...@f17g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> 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.
But one need not do so. At least many people use decimal numbers.
> > 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.
There is no contradiction, there is no contradiction, there is no contradiction, ...
