In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 23 Nov., 17:09, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Nov 23, 11:56 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > On the contrary, the fact that the analytic *limit* > > cannot be described in terms of digits is > > the point. > > A further explanation may be appropriate: In your example set theory > is not in contradiction with analysis. Both theories prove the > existence of infinitely many digits and both cannot fix the position > of the leading 1.
As usual, WM is misrepresenting things.
Both true set theory and true analysis sow that there is no such thing as a "leading 1" for any limit of the sequencing described. > > My example shows a contradiction.
WM's examples almost always contradict standard mathematics, but why WM should think that that is a virtue is unknown. --