```Date: Feb 5, 2013 5:04 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 203

In article <ec3e530e-a325-408d-851e-d236b1106f99@z9g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:> On 4 Feb., 20:31, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:> > On 2/4/2013 2:15 AM, WM wrote:> >> >> > > > > 2) An uncountable set has (infinitely many) more elements than a> > > countable set.> >> > By "more," you mean that the construction of a new name> > may be accomplished and by "infinitely many" you mean that> > consecutive constructions can always be performed sequentially> > without end from any initial finite configuration of names.> > More means more than all rational points of the universe.> Gödel and Cohen doubted the continuum hypothesis. They estimate the> cardinality of the continuum as being muchg larger.Which, if so, would only make WM even more wrong than he already is.> >> > > 3) Every real number has at least one unique representation as an> > > infinite binary string (some rationals have even two representations> > > but that's peanuts).> >> > By "uniqueness", you mean there is a strategy for> > constructing names that always allows you to differentiate> > a single object from a plurality on the basis of "naming"> > Yes. If you cannot select a particulat number like 3/4 or pi, you> cannot work with it.> >> > > 4) In many cases the string cannot be defined by a finite word.> >> > What would be the limitation here?  Is it the negative logic> > of "since there are more numbers than names..."?> > Of course.> >> > > 5) Without loss of information the first bits of two strings, if> > > equal, need not be written twice.> >> > This starts to become a little problematic.  Now, your numbers> > are turning into classes of numbers.  And, your names are> > turning into the names for canonical representatives of those> > classes if the partition is viewed as an equivalence partition.> > Don't see problems where no problems are.> Whether I write> 3.14000... and 3.14159...> or write>         000...> 3,14>         159...> with connecting edges as a guides for the eye does not make any> difference.That would depend on the context in which you write.If you are writing in a linear context, as most writing is done, then your "3.14000... and 3.14159..." fits in nicely, but the other does not.--
```