```Date: Jan 29, 2013 4:27 AM
Author: mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
Subject: Re: ZFC and God

On 28 Jan., 22:52, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:> >> Well, you agreed to that definition.>> > Of course, but not as you now put it without restriction, but under> > the proviso that every decimal is terminating. In that case for every> > decimal the required k exists by definition.>> Er.  So.>> You accepted the definition under the assumption that every decimal is> terminating?I said that we are working in the terminating decimals. I let open thequestion whether there might be non-terminating decimals.>  Well, not to put to fine a point on it, but you started> by claiming that the set of terminating decimals is countable.Obviously true.> Now,> if every real has a terminating decimal representation, then...I did not say that every real has a terminating representation.>> Look, you're just making my head hurt.  I really don't have any clue> what you think you're doing here, but it is the worst impression of> mathematical reasoning I've ever seen, and that's saying something.As you see above you misunderstand. That what may look worse to you issimply your wrong impression. I don't know whether you cannotcomprehend what I said.> AGH!  You just rejected my definition and said that a decimal is> terminating iff it is in the set of terminating decimals, and you> define that set with reference to the definition of terminating> decimal.>> Never mind.  The point remains.  The number 0.777... is not in T.Then show it! Show a digit that lies beyond all digits of terminatingdecimals.> The number 0.777... is the usual real number, namely>>   0.777... = sum_i=1^oo 7 * 10^-i.>> Now, is that a terminating decimal or not?Show a digit that lies beyond all digits of terminating decimals.Or do you claim that it is impossible to distinguish terminating andnon-terminating by digits? Or do you claim that it is impossible towork in the domain of terminating decimals?Why can't you support your claims?Regards, WM
```