On 4/6/2013 3:23 PM, WM wrote: > On 6 Apr., 21:54, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > >>> You were right. The reason is: There are at most countably many finite >>> definitions like e = SUM1/n!. That is undisputed. So if there should >>> be uncountably many reals, most of them cannot be defined - or can >>> only be defined by infinite sequences. >> >> Pi and sqrt(2) are both reals defined other than by infinite sequences. > > Of course. They exist as elements of the countable set of finite > names.
But, WM failed his course on naming.
He has recently demonstrated his inability to know the standard interpretation of the phrase "finite set".
He has regularly demonstrated the inability to know the standard interpretation of the term "countable".
He has, in the past, demonstrated the inability to interpret the specification of the domain in Zermelo's 1908 paper. So, even his interpretation of the term "element" is to be questioned.
In addition, he uses quantifiers in non-standard ways. This is by his own admission and is recently demonstrated in discussions on the Goldbach conjecture with Nam.
Oh, I almost forgot. He has a problem with definiteness and singular terms.
This leaves the following words from his statement: