```Date: Feb 4, 2013 5:39 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 203

In article <784a5a95-e5b7-45da-9571-ce0c3245e1a2@5g2000yqz.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:> On 4 Feb., 10:19, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:> > On Feb 4, 5:29 am, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:> >> > > On 2/3/2013 9:20 PM, Virgil wrote:> > > >> 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))" .> >> > > In view of WM's positions, length(0.111...) would have> > > to be the value given to a non-existent.> >> > Nope.  According to WM the 0.111... is the potentially> > infinite sequence  {.1, .11, .111, ...}> > It certainly exists> > We must be careful. There is no equivalence. 1/9 and 0.111... are both> finite expressions, finite formulas. Using one of these formulas we> can calculate every FIS of 0.111..., namely 0.1, 0.11, and so on. But> from none of the FIS we can obtain 1/9 or 0.111. And the complete set> of FISs does not exist as the complete string consisting of infinitely> many 1's (and not only of the formula to calculate each one) does not> exist.> > This nonexistence is so obvious that noone cares. Why else has nobody> ever used the complete string?For the same reason that no one writes out the complete string for 10^(100^(1000^(10000^100000))).--
```