On Thursday, 1 May 2014 19:19:25 UTC+2, Virgil wrote:
> > Those need to accept undefinable "real" numbers, i.e., numbers that cannot be > > mentioned in any way by men. >
> Then WM must not be a man at all , since he just mentioned them.
No. I mentioned a fantasy. I di not mention any number that can be recognized by this mentioning. > > > > They are not individually defineable, i.e., cannot be given an exact > value, in the same way that naturals, integers, and rationals can be > given exact values, but every real interval of positive length contains > uncountably many of them.
Nevertheless, this is purest belief. Cantor's argument concern only definable numbers. >
> > Of course there are such Fools Of Matheology, as > > I call them, but most mathematicians would not join them. > > > > Those whom WM insults as being "Fools Of Matheology" incude those at the > forefront of modern mathematics
That does not play a role. Acceptance of undefinable numbers (in order to veil the fact that Cantor proved the uncountability of the countable set of definable numbers) makes you a fool, a front-fool if you like, but unavoidably a fool. > Regards, WM