Am Mittwoch, 11. Dezember 2013 19:22:02 UTC+1 schrieb Zeit Geist:
> > > 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.
Fine for you. My claim says that by digits it is impossible to prove that d differs from all rational. That means up to every finite digit there are infinitely many rationals identical with d up to that digit.
And if you acknowledge that d is nothing more than its digits, then there are infinitely many rational identical with d. > And if you mention that d is more than its digits at finite places then you either need a digit at infinite place or a finite word defining some "structure". >
> 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.
No this method, unles the result is defined by a finite word, does not accomplish what you thought or even think yet. > > > > > > 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,
Because it is too large or too less? > > > > And I don't need Digits, for they are simply Representations, and these Representations are Not Necessarily Faithful.
But you would need digits or something else like that in order to "realize" uncountably many words.