On Wednesday, December 11, 2013 11:00:05 AM UTC-7, WM wrote: > 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. >
And your claim refutes nothing we have said.
> > 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. >
And all even numbers are divisible by 2. However this, as well as you above stament, have nothing to do with result of the Diagonalization Method.
> > 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? >
An Amount that can Not be put into a 1:1 correspondence with the Natural Numbers,
And I don't need Digits, for they are simply Representations, and these Representations are Not Necessarily Faithful.