In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 26 Jan., 23:32, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > > > Aside: Of course this nonsense shows already that set theory is such. > > > A limit is the continuation of the finite into the infinite. But that > > > is not used in my proof. > > > > I know of no such definition of any limit process. > > That does not prove anything.
Unless you can prove your claim it does. > > > > > > > > You are not well informed. Read my proof again (and again, if > > > necessary, until you will have understood, if possible): In analysis > > > you calculate the limit. This limit contains numbers or (in the > > > reduced case of my proof) bits 0 and 1. The number of theses bits is > > > the cardinality of the limit. > > > > Then, according to WM, lim_(n -> oo) 1/n must have infinitely many bits. > > Of course, for instance if written as the seqeunce that here is > abbreviated as 1 - 0.999... or as 0.000...
But WM does not allow infinitely many bits in Wolkenmuekenheim.
So perhaps WM does occasionally venture into the real world. --