> On 4 Mai, 20:31, Dan <dan.ms.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: > > >> For the record , language is man-made . Mathematics is not .Its >> universality is proof enough. > > Mathematics is, in large parts, discourse between mathematicians. That > requires a language that can be spoken and understood, i.e., a finite > language.
In any case,a language very different from yours.
>> >Either you have digits 1 at finite positions only. Then your number is >> >in the list, since all finite positions are covered. (You cannot find >> >that line. This is the same as: For every n there are infinitely many >> >naturals m > n. But you cannot find those which are larger than all n. >> >(Since there are not "all" n.)) >> >Or you have digits at larger than all finite positions. Then you >> >cannot replace them and cannot apply Cantor's argument. >> >> Ok . Let's say I accept your argument . We can't say that 0.11111.... >> is not in the list with finite digits only . Finitude does not permit >> us to make that distinction . > > The list contains, by definition and by sober thinking, all digits > that have natural indices. There is no choice to accept it or not.
The "list" is as void of digits as your idiotic ramblings are of sense. That is, the list does not contain a single digit. It contains certain rational numbers. Maybe rational numbers contain digits (if one would define them accordingly). But even then, what is contained in what is contained in the list is usually still not contained in the list. And that anything would be in the list because it can be composed from things which are contained in things which are contained in the list is an idiocy of world-class stupidity.