Date: Jan 17, 2013 5:24 PM
Subject: Re: WMatheology � 191
WM <email@example.com> 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
But WM has on several occasions claimed that numbers without complete
decimal representations can not exist in the set of real numbers.