```Date: Feb 2, 2013 5:02 AM
Author: mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
Subject: Re: Matheology § 203

On 2 Feb., 09:57, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:> On 2/1/2013 9:48 AM, WM wrote:>>>>>> > On 1 Feb., 16:35, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:> >> Let P(n) be> >>   0.111...  is not the nth line> >>   of>> >>   0.1000...> >>   0.11000...> >>   0.111000...> >>   ...>> >> Clearly for every natural number n> >> P(n) is true.>> >> This means there is no natural> >> number m for which P(m) is true.>> >> It is not simply that we cannot find m,> >> we know that m does not exist.>> > More. We know that P(n) = 0.111...  = 1/0 does not exist as an> > actually infinite sequence of 1's.>> Hmm....>> As I watch you make these arguments, it occurs to me...>> What proof do you have that some sequence is not infinitely> long?Even with no regard to Tristram Shandy who disproves actual infinite,we can say: The sequence for 1/9 = 0.111... cannot have indices thatdiffer from all indices of its finite approximations. So you cannotdistinguish 0.111... by looking at digits from its finiteapproximations. And you cannot use it in any discourse because everymessage is finite and needs an endoffile signal to be meaningful.Concluding: The property that a sequence of digits does not end cannotbe obtained from its digits. (Remember, 0.111... is not a sequence ofdigits but is only a rule to construct a sequence of digits. The ruleyields the sequence, but the sequence does not yield the rule.)That means in mathematics, understood as discourse, there is nodecimal representation of 1/9. What God may use for his mathematics isnot my problem.Thank you for that question.Regards, WM
```