Am Mittwoch, 11. Dezember 2013 18:39:12 UTC+1 schrieb Zeit Geist:
> > It is obviously the proof that d cannot be distiguished up to any finite place from all rationals. More is not claimed. Do you object? > > > > > > > Fine. > > > > If n e N, then There Exists r e L, the List of All Rational Numbers, such FIS(d_n) = r. > > > > However, For All n e N, FIS(d) < d, where d is Defined by the 4-5-Diagonalization Method. > > The above Statement concerning FIS(d) does Not give us anything about d itself.
And it does not refute my claim. > > > > It is obvious that when you say "distinguishable by digits", you mean only Finite Sets of Digits. > It is obvious that there are only digits at finite places which are preceded by finite sets of digits.
> Well, d is more than a Finite Set of Digits. Even if you All FIS(d) you don't have d; the "more" you speak of is Not its Digit, it is its Structure.
You are wise. Why not apply that wisdom. The structure cannot be accounted for by digits. For that sake you need a finite word in the language that you wish to use. How many finite words are there in your language?