Date: Feb 3, 2013 10:20 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 203
In article

<bc3c4c0e-d017-49b3-a4f3-22aba84aa3c7@5g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>,

WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> On 3 Feb., 22:29, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:

> > > > We can say "every line has the property that it

> > > > does not contain every initial segment of s"

> > > > There is no need to use the concept "all".

> >

> > > Yes, and this is the only sensible way to treat infinity.

> >

> > So now we have a way of saying

> >

> > s is not a line of L

> >

> > e.g. 0.111... is not a line of

> >

> > 0.1000...

> > 0.11000...

> > 0.111000....

> > ...

> >

> > because every line, l(n), has the property that

> > l(n) does not contain every initial

> > segment of 0.111...

>

> But that does not exclude s from being in the list. What finite

> initial segment (FIS) of 0.111... is missing? Up to every line there

> is some FIS missing, but every FIS is with certainty in some trailing

> line. And with FIS(n) all smaller FISs are present.

But with no FIS are all present.

>

> > Is there a sensible way of saying

> > s is a line of L ?

>

> There is no sensible way of saying that 0.111... is more than every

> FIS.

How about "For all f, (f is a FIS) -> (length(0.111...) > length(f))" .

It makes perfect sense to those not permanently encapsulated in

WMytheology.

--