In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 17 Jan., 17:38, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > > On 1/17/2013 4:52 AM, WM wrote: > > > > > On 17 Jan., 08:42, Ralf Bader <ba...@nefkom.net> wrote: > > > > >> In a similar way it seems to be > > >> impossible for M ckenheim to grasp something actually (not in the > > >> always-growing sense) countably infinite without a boundary at the far > > >> end. > > > > > Not at all! I consider and vivdly imagine the actually infinite set of > > > all terminating decimal representations of the reals containg all > > > natural numbers as indices. Alas I cannot imagine that there is > > > another decimal representations of the reals which deviates from all > > > of them. Can you? > > > > Then, do irrational numbers exist > > transiently on a problem by problem > > basis? (Vacuum energy numbers) > > They exist in many forms but certainly not as never ending decimal > representations that somehow manage to end or at least to be complete > nevertheless.
But WM has on several occasions claimed that numbers without complete decimal representations can not exist in the set of real numbers. --