On Tuesday, December 10, 2013 4:52:18 AM UTC-7, WM wrote: > Am Montag, 9. Dezember 2013 22:01:18 UTC+1 schrieb Zeit Geist: > > > > I am not interested in your "proofs" but in defining an irrational number like the antidiagonal d by an arbitrarily large sequence of its digits d_n (including an infinite sequence). This is impossible because for every digits d_n there are infinitely many duplicates. > > > You not interested in any proofs at all. You shout Dogma. > > The above "proof" is invalid, but you are even too blind to that. > > I see that it is in agreement with mathematics: >For every finite or infinite sequence of digits of d there is a rational number including it. > That can and has been proven.
Where has that been proven?
What rational number q has the property that: q includes sqrt(2). This has been proven False for All rational numbers.
>That is of more value than your "proofs" which lead to obviously false results.
You must talking to yourself.
> > The Logic in that above exposition resembles the flawed reasoning you would use. > > But it leads to the correct result: It is impossible to distinguish d by its digits from all entries of arationals-complete list. >
First of all, I have admitted I was mistaken about the contents of that conjecture.
Also, you have yet to prove this "impossibility to distinguish d by digits...". You haven't even defined what this means. I have argued that a Finite Formula does what is required, but you just disagree and don't give any support for you argument other than "but infinitely many follow". This is Not Sufficient to prove your claim.