fom
Posts:
1,968
Registered:
12/4/12


Re: Matheology § 233
Posted:
Mar 28, 2013 4:05 PM


On 3/28/2013 2:54 PM, fom wrote: > On 3/28/2013 2:46 PM, Gus Gassmann wrote: >> On 28/03/2013 3:38 PM, fom wrote: >>> On 3/28/2013 7:48 AM, WM wrote: >>>>> >>>> If the set of all rationals exists, then that limit exists already in >>>> that set. Combining paths with loss of nodes is not useful to increase >>>> the number of paths. >>> >>> But no one is talking about whether the sequence >>> of rationals converging to a rational is in the >>> set of rationals. >>> >>> The issue is a representation of apparent geometric >>> completeness within an arithmetical system. >> >> I don't think so. I think the issue is that Mueckenheim, whom someone >> decided to hire as a professor of mathematics at a thirdrate >> institution, manages to obfuscate just enough the distinction between >> repeating and nonrepeating decimals when he applies them to paths, and >> that he is too dense to comprehend that. Crayon marks, indeed. >> > > Well, that is the realworld issue. It is what motivates > Virgil to reply regularly to this nonsense. > > He has stated as much. >
It is *the obfuscation* that motivates Virgil.
He has stated as much.

