In article <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> 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.
Much of what WM classes as fantasy inside his wild weird world of WMytheology, is reality outside of it, and vice versa.
> > 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.
And shows that if countably many of them can exist then uncountably many of them must also exist.
> > Those whom WM insults as being "Fools Of Matheology" incude those at the > > forefront of modern mathematics > > That does not play a role.
It does everywere outside of WM's wild weird world of WMytheology.
The set of defineable numbers includes any and all numbers that are only colectively but not individually defineable.