```Date: Feb 6, 2013 4:08 AM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology   203

In article <31ec64ee-9225-4b37-86b2-4991b21af97b@hq4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:> On 6 Feb., 04:47, Ralf Bader <ba...@nefkom.net> wrote:> > > I am indeed slightly confused about what you wrote and what it has to do> > with the previous discussion. This was centered around a "list" of decimal> > fractions, namely:> > To the natural number i, the fraction 0.1...100... with exactly i digits> > equalling 1 is associated. And the assertion of MÃ¼ckenheim was that> > s=0.111... with infinitely many digits equalling 1 "is" somehow in this> > list, because all its finite initial segments appear in the list.> > Everything of 0.111... that can be defined by sequences of 1's, is in> the list. The finite definition "s" or "o.111..." is not in the list,> but finite definitions have nothing to do with Cantor's diagonal> proof.> Is that really exceeding the capacity of your brain?It certainly seems beyond the capacity of WM's.> > > And this I called idiotic crap, and I still do so;> > Lessen your blood pressure.> > > if I should have> > overlooked something deeply profound, I still don't see it.> > Obviously.> > > > According to MÃ¼ckenheim, "There is no> > sensible way of saying that 0.111... is more than every> > FIS". Of the authorities you called upon, whom would you find capable of> > regardng this as a sensible assertion?> > Brouwer said so, for instance: Every infinite sequence must have a> repeating element. Why would that be required if not in order to> facilitate a finite definition? But why do we need a finite> definition? 0.111... is a finite definition for Sum_(n in |N) 1/b^n, where b is the base in whch 0.111... is being written.--
```