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.

--