In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 25 Jan., 19:52, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote: > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> writes: > > >> Is t_i(i) also defined for every i in N? > > > > > Yes, of course, with absolute certainty. > > > > >> Assuming you will say yes, then I must ask: > > > > >> Is d(i) therefore defined for every i in N? > > > > > Yes, of course, with absolute certainty. > > > > > And nothing of that takes us out of the domain of all terminating > > > decimals, because ; > > > > >> > In ZF every n in N is finite. > > > > > and with it every FISON. > > > > Well, let's not get ahead of ourselves just yet. > > > > You agree that, for every i in N, d(i) is defined. > > > > I suppose you also agree that, for every i in N, d(i) != 0 and > > d(i) != 9, right? > > > > Okay, so d(i) is defined for every i in N, and d(i) is non-zero and > > not nine. > > > > Clearly, d is a non-terminating decimal. > > The set of all FISONs is not terminating. Is there a non-terminating > FISON? No.
If a set of all FISONs exists at all, which that above statement concedes, then the union all members of that set is a set, after which, exist decimals with a digit for each member of that union.
WM cannot have it both ways. > > Try to understand that and evaluate the consequences. It is useless to > go on unless you got it that we work in the domain of terminating > decimals.
Which hellhole WM condemns himself to work in is irrelevant to anyone else, as others can easily work elsewhere, and do. --