In <qImdnYCz5tRmvITMnZ2dnUVZ_oWdnZ2d@giganews.com>, on 02/11/2013 at 10:53 AM, fom <fomJUNK@nyms.net> said:
>Should I assume this question is contemptuous?
More precisely, that you were slinging around symbols and words without knowing what they mean, and inventing a local language without providing definitions. That, by the way, is what some of the participants in the tree thread were doing.
You might start by thinking about what you meant by "9.999...", then asking whether "pattern matching" has any relevance.
Similarly, what were you trying to say when you wrote 'Now, in what follows, the particular problem will be considering the nature of eventually constant sequences taken to be ontologically "the same."'? Do you know what syntax is? What do Dedekind cuts have to do with decimal expansions, other than the trivial sense that they can be used to construct a model of the Reals?
You really need to step back, separate out the philosophy from the mathematics and define any terms that you aren't uisng in accordance with standard practice.
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not reply to email@example.com