In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 26 Mrz., 21:04, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > In article > > <bca277a3-1edb-4ad9-9abe-a24df4e23...@m12g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>, > > > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > On 26 Mrz., 00:08, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > > > > > > No. We deal with irrational numbers by using their names. > > > > > > We deal with ALL numbers by using various forms of their names. > > > > > And there are only countably many names that we can deal with. > > > > That only means that we cannot deal directly or individually with any of > > those many unnamed and unnameable real numbers. It does not mean that > > they are not there. That is a flaw in our language, not in the number > > system. > > No it is the flaw in your brains.
Not outside of Wolkenmuekenheim. Which I am fortunately unable to enter.
> Of course every proof and every Cantor list deliver one or more but at > most a countable set of named diagonals. Never has any proof shown an > uncountable real or given any hint to surmise that.
Cantor's first proof showed that for every countable set of reals there were others no included.
Cantor's second (diagonal) proof showed that for every list of reals as binaries ( or for any other base), there are as many missing as included.
Since WM has yet to come up with anything valid n opposition, Cantor rules over WM. --