In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 1 Mai, 23:45, JT <jonas.thornv...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On 1 Maj, 23:31, Dan <dan.ms.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > "A rose by any other name would smell as sweet" > > > > No no no a formula is not a number... > > > I think it is a matter of taste. Some say that SUM1/n! is a number, > other do not. But it is not important here to take position.
You just took one! And, as usual, a bad one! > > > A function is not a number... An > > expression can be evaluated into a number. But 8 is a number 2*4 is an > > expression 4+4 is an expression 2^3 is an expression they are all > > different expressions/calculations leading to same value.- > > Yes. And the point here is that Cantor's argument is only valid for > decimal expansions and is only supplying decimal expansions.
Cantor's argument applies for numbers in any radix > 2 so long as the nth number can be expanded to n digit accuracy.
> (Theoriginal argument applies binaries.)
But not binary numbers. > > Since 1/9 has no decimal expansion, it cannot be the anti-diagonal of > a Cantor-list.
It IS one of many anti-diagonals for the list of decimals: 0.2, 0.22, 0.222, ... as well as for any number of other lists of decimals which contain no digit '1' .