Date: Nov 17, 2012 3:26 AM
Author: LudovicoVan
Subject: Re: Matheology § 152

"WM" <> wrote in message

> And finally everybody knows that decimal numbers, by definition,
> cannot consist of digits that have no indexs.

With all due respect, you are an incorrigible fart who is committing himself
to denying the meaningfulness of lim_{n->oo} n = oo.

Unless I have misunderstood your remark: should that be where the heck,
eventually, the infinitely many balls (indices) have gone in that {oo}, then
note that, formally, succ(oo) := oo (in the most basic extension), hence we
have non-finite (i.e. limit) indices all along, not distinguishable one
another (within the calculus!), so amounting to a singleton set.

Incidentally, I insist, as a critical point, that we should be using N*, not
N, for any "infinite endeavours": asking what happens to the vase in the
limit is intrinsically a super-task and then, maybe, I start understanding
why set theory (any set theory) compels actual infinities.