Date: Jan 26, 2013 6:58 AM
Author: gus gassmann
Subject: Re: ZFC and God

On 25/01/2013 10:58 PM, Virgil wrote:
> In article <>,
> "Jesse F. Hughes" <> wrote:

>> WM <> writes:

>>>> I'm not going to bother working through your addled analogy.
>>> You need not. Just ask yourself whether or not it is possible to
>>> define in ZFC the set of all terminating decimal representations of
>>> the real numbers of the unit interval. If you think that it is not
>>> possible, then you should try to learn it. If you know it already,
>>> then we can formally restrict ourselves to working in this set until
>>> we discover a digit that is not defined in an element of this set.
>>> Your further questions then turn out meaningless.

>> I asked how you define terminating decimal representation. How is
>> that meaningless?
>> Here's the definition I suggested again. Please tell me if you agree
>> with it, and if not, what definition you have in mind.
>> Let x be a real number in [0,1]. We say that x has a terminating
>> decimal representation iff there is an f:N -> {0,...,9} such
>> that
>> x = sum_i f(i) * 10^-i,
>> and
>> (En)(Am > n)(f(m) = 0) or (En)(Am > n)(f(m) = 9)
>> If x has no terminating decimal representation, then we say that x is
>> non-terminating.
>> We cannot continue unless I know what you mean by terminating decimal
>> representation.

> WM finds precise careful definitions far too restricting for his
> maunderings in Wolkenmuekenheim, so will resist either providing one
> himself or accepting anyone else's.

I suspect he is threatened by them. He cannot work through the (En) and
(Am) notation and all that stuff, so he denies, denies, denies. He is
all bluster, with absolutely zero understanding or hope of understanding
even the simplest mathematical concepts.

That's why he cannot let himself be pinned down by Jesse's definitions.
He cannot understand them, so he cannot control them. He is, above all,
a control freak.