Date: Nov 22, 2012 2:33 AM
Author: mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
Subject: Re: Matheology § 154: Consistency Proof!

On 21 Nov., 22:01, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> In article
> <168832cc-10d3-4040-b710-1337ecfbc...@ib4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>
>  WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> > And it is as easy to see that in set theory the set of indices left of
> > the decimal point

> > > >> > 0_2 1_1 .
> > > >> > 0_2 . 1_1
> > > >> > 0_4 1_3 0_2 . 1_1
> > > >> > 0_4 1_3 . 0_2 1_1
> > > >> > 0_6 1_5 0_4 1_3 . 0_2 1_1
> > > >> > 0_6 1_5 0_4 . 1_3 0_2 1_1
> > > >> > 0_8 1_7 0_6 1_5 0_4 . 1_3 0_2 1_1
> > > >> > 0_8 1_7 0_6 1_5 . 0_4 1_3 0_2 1_1
> > > >> > ...

> > has limit { }.
>
> While I see a point between other expressions , I do not see anything
> that could be properly interpreted as  a DECIMAL point.


This point is the decimal point.
>
> Or does WM regard such things as 1_3 and 1_5 as decimal digits?


The digit here is 1, the indexes are 3 and 5.
>
> And the limit of number of "positions"  would be infinite on either side
> of that point.


In mathematics this is true. In set theory it is false.

Regards, WM