On 4/13/2013 4:06 AM, WM wrote: > On 13 Apr., 10:42, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: >> On 4/13/2013 3:16 AM, WM wrote: >> >>> On 13 Apr., 06:47, "AMiews" <inva...@invalid.com> wrote: >> >>>>> 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. >> >>> But you believe in its existence nevertheless? >>> There is no end and there is no "all", because every scientific use of >>> "all" would include to find all. And that includes to prove that all >>> have been found. And that includes that a last one has been confirmed. >> >> WM's finite existence hypothesis. > > No, there is the simple fact that mathematics is done by finite means > and that statements concerning actions have to be proved,.
The very notion of determining the precision of a an approximate value in numerical analysis presupposes an exact value. The "knowledge" of those exact values in the mathematical theories WM rejects involve infinity.
Suppose one takes exactly one of WM's crayon marks,
What makes that an individual? What makes that an instantiation of "one object"?
There is either a single complement of "not that crayon mark" or there is an apparently indeterminable plurality of "other objects" which must satisfy the predicate "not that crayon mark".
Since the plurality is apparently indeterminable, WM's claims with regard to science and scientific explanation reduce to a claim that that apparently indeterminable plurality is exhaustible through counting. This must be a falsifiable claim because it is being presented as a scientific claim.
Why ask WM to prove anything, when we can ask him to conduct science?
Please, WM. Give us a scientific demonstration of your claims.