In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com wrote:
> In mathematics we have: If every digits of d together with all its > predecessors is in a set of numbers, then d is in the set of numbers.
In WM's matheology one may have that, but in mathematics, d can be a set of digits without being a numeral (name for a number) and set of digits need not be either a member of or a subset of a set of numbers.
WM's sloppy thinking and wording again undercuts his claim.
> > Your simple mistake is to believe, that a number can be defined by infinitely > many digits that is wrong. For example the number 1/9 is not defined by > aleph_0 digits. 1/9 is the limit of the sequence > > 0.1 > 0.11 > 0.111 > ... > It is equally represented in the set of real numbers or in the set of Rational numbers by the sequence. It is only with the corruption of WM's mytheology that such obvious truths are forbidden.
> but it is not definable by infinitely many digits.
It is defineable as the limit of a sequence
> Therefore my theorem is of the same value as Cantor's.
Not in the eyes of anyone except WM himself, and his sight is corrupted by WM's mytheology. --