On 17 Mrz., 10:54, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > On 3/16/2013 4:57 PM, WM wrote: > > > > > > > On 16 Mrz., 16:13, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > > >> Where we come to the question of > >> how you refer to points without > >> an implicit use of infinity. > > > All points that you can define geometrically, belong to a finite > > collection. > > >> This, of course, comes back to > >> how you refer singularly without > >> an implicit use of infinity. > > > A unit can be defined without referring to infinity. I think it is one > > of the silliest arguments of matheology that infinity is required to > > define finity. It is simply insane. > > No. It is merely respectful -- something of > which you seem incapable. > Respect requires a respectable object. Insanities do not deserve respect. There were too many who respected Nero, Napoleon, Hitler or Stalin and those who stimulated others to do so.