In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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.
But if one can do without digits, then nothing of the reals is dependent on them. > > > > 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, ...
If there really were any such contradictions, would someone as demonstrably incompetent as WM be able to find it? Only by sheer luck, and WM isn't that lucky!
And even if WM were lucky enough to find one, could he prove it? No chance at all! --