In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 28 Nov., 07:53, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > In article > > <c03b3d78-2cc4-488d-85a8-8493fcec6...@p17g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>, > > > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > But even this seemingly innocent conclusion can lead to > > > contradictions. Compare the sequence: > > > > > 01. > > > > > 0.1 > > > > > 010.1 > > > > > 01.01 > > > > > 0101.01 > > > > > 010.101 > > > > > 01010.101 > > > > > 0101.0101 > > > > > ... > > > No term has more digits left than right. > > > > Some of those terms certainly SHOW more digits to the left of the point > > than to the right of it, no matter how one counts digits. > > Of course, I meant: No term has more digits right than left. > Otherwise my argument would not be supported.
One could, of course, append any number of 0's to any term without changing its numerical value at all, but thereby falsifing WM's claim entirely.
And one notes that, at least in standard usage, the only decimal numerals allowed to start with the digit zero are less than 1.
So none of the strings WM is playing with are really real numbers at all. --