Virgil
Posts:
6,993
Registered:
1/6/11


Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
Posted:
Jan 5, 2013 5:22 PM


In article <bb7be2f4a0c34538baf6527a064d1771@b8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fhaugsburg.de> wrote:
> On 4 Jan., 19:47, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > > The rationals > > are not complete. So much so, in fact, that they are a set > > of measure zero. > > > > But, wait. > > No reasonable reason to wait. "Measure zero" is a nonsense expression > because it presupposes aleph_0 as a meaningful notion. There are > convergent sequences, but the limit is never assumed, not "after > aleph_0 steps".
So WM would throw out all of measure theory with his bathwater. > > > A set of measure zero presumes a sigma algebra generated > > from the open sets of the topology (or the compact sets if you > > prefer). > > > > > > > > > Cantor's list establishes the uncountability of distinguishable and > > > hence constructable reals. > > > > Constructible real has a definite sense that you > > do not abide by. You should talk of nameable reals and > > Frege's notion of definite symbols.
WM should not talk at all, since he would throw out so much of standard mathematics in order to keep his WMytheology "pure". > > Constructible reals are a subset of nameable reals. (Every > prescription for a construction is a name.) Therefore I do not make an > error.
NonSequitur. It is plainly obvious to everyone except WM that he makes errors all the time, and then squirms wildly to cover his ass. > > Regards, WM 

