In article <email@example.com>, "AMiews" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> "WM" <email@example.com> wrote in message > news:firstname.lastname@example.org... > On 12 Apr., 21:42, "AMiews" <inva...@invalid.com> wrote: > > "WM" <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote in message > > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > <snip> > > >> wrong. repeating sequences of bits in an infinitely long string indicate > >> representation as a fraction. > > >Since there is no topology defined for Cantor's binary sequences, > >there is no chance to determine a limit of wmwmwmwm... > > balonie, > you are only complaining about the three dots or periods " ... " > indicating repeating in that fashion, so get over it... > > > > >> >Most of them cannot be written by finite expressions. And they cannot > >> >be written as infinite expressions. > >> > >> wrong. you seem ill at ease with infinite representations of numbers > > >Have you ever seen an infinite expression? Do you think that 0.111... > >is an infinite expression? > > it is short hand for one, > the "..." mean repeated, usally one uses a bar over the last repeated > numbers, but cant do that with text. > > > > 1/9 or 0.111... are very finite expressions > > yes and you are fussing over notation convention, meaning you are unfamiliar > with math(s) > > >for infinite sequences. But those sequences are not available. > > why ? where did they go ? if they were infinite, they would fill up your > room... > > > >And > >every d_n of a numerical Cantor-list is the last digit of a > >terminating decimal. > >Never, do you understand, never anybody has seen or used a d_n that > >does not belong to a terminating decimal. > > you seem confused by standard math notation here. Irrationals no one has > seen the end.
If those }e_n's" are digits, no one has ever seen digit that does not appear in infinitely many natural numbers. > > > > >Therefore Cantor proves that the countable set of rationals is > >uncountable.