In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 18 Apr., 22:09, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > > > No. The algorithm exists. But it will never yield a complete infinite > > > decimal string equal to 1/9. Every index of a 1 of that string that > > > you can name, imagine, or think is finite. > > > > It is not the size of any one index but the number of different indices > > that is not finite. > > The number of indices is a number. Up to any finite index it is a > finite number.
Then you should be aqble to give us the allegedly finite number of indices. Unless here are more of them that an finite number. > > > > > > Obviously it is the > > > greatest you can name > > > > Why even try to name what does not exist, a greatest member. > > Try to name the greatest number that you can name. Or try to name a > greater number than all you have known.
Every natural number has a successor which is larger than itself, so that any attempt to name or claim a greatest is as foolish as WM always is. --