Date: Dec 4, 2012 7:52 AM
Author: mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
Subject: Re: Matheology § 170
On 4 Dez., 10:04, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:

> In article

> <d9d8e2b0-0bda-4a42-a057-c4caa47c3...@r14g2000vbd.googlegroups.com>,

>

> WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> > Matheology 170

>

> > The infinite triangle formed by the sequence

>

> > 0.1

> > 0.11

> > 0.111

> > ...

>

> > has height aleph_0 but width less than aleph_0 (because the limit 1/9,

> > the first line with aleph_0 digits, does not belong to the triangle).

> > This lack of symmetry is disturbing for a physicist.

>

> In order to be a mathematically valid triangle, your figure would have

> to have a last line, which means that you must be claiming that there is

> a largest natural number corresponding to that last line, which is not

> only disturbing to real physicists but also to real mathematicians.

Your objection is tantamount to requiring: In order be a

mathematically valid set, the natural numbers would have to have a

last number.

Like every finite initial segment of naturals has a last number every

triangle of the sequences has three limiting lines.

Regards, WM