Virgil
Posts:
4,479
Registered:
1/6/11
|
|
Re: Matheology � 200
Posted:
Jan 26, 2013 6:04 PM
|
|
In article
<6bcaa96a-eafb-4a48-9db0-d0a8dd0652cd@r14g2000yqe.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> 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.
--
|
|
