Date: Jan 17, 2013 5:24 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: WMatheology � 191

In article 
<808a7cfe-e31c-4a28-8406-b4d17be3348f@y8g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
 WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> On 17 Jan., 17:38, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:
> > On 1/17/2013 4:52 AM, WM wrote:
> >
> > > On 17 Jan., 08:42, Ralf Bader <ba...@nefkom.net> wrote:
> >
> > >> In a similar way it seems to be
> > >> impossible for M ckenheim to grasp something actually (not in the
> > >> always-growing sense) countably infinite without a boundary at the far 
> > >> end.
> >
> > > Not at all! I consider and vivdly imagine the actually infinite set of
> > > all terminating decimal representations of the reals containg all
> > > natural numbers as indices. Alas I cannot imagine that there is
> > > another decimal representations of the reals which deviates from all
> > > of them. Can you?
> >
> > Then, do irrational numbers exist
> > transiently on a problem by problem
> > basis?  (Vacuum energy numbers)
> 
> They exist in many forms but certainly not as never ending decimal
> representations that somehow manage to end or at least to be complete
> nevertheless.
 
But WM has on several occasions claimed that numbers without complete 
decimal representations can not exist in the set of real numbers.
--