In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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.
> 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.
But for every rational there is also a digit at which it differs from d.
So it doesn't matter how many digits d has in cmmon with any rational but only whether it has one or more which differ. Which it does,
> And if you acknowledge that d is nothing more than its digits, then there are > infinitely many rational identical with d.
NOT when, as is the case, every rational DIFFERS from d in at least one digit position.
> 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".
Don't need any such claim. The only thing WE need is that two digit strings which differ suitably in one (or more) digit positions represent different real numbers.
> > 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.
If by "a finite word", WM really means what in English iwould be "a finite number of words", then we have defined it in "a finite word". --