Date: Mar 23, 2013 1:02 PM
Author: fom
Subject: Re: Matheology § 224

On 3/23/2013 11:05 AM, WM wrote:
> On 23 Mrz., 01:08, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
>> In article
>> <cab606ea-29e6-48ae-97c1-56cd1fd39...@f5g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
>>
>> WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

>>> On 22 Mrz., 16:24, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>>>> And what is in your opinion beyond any finite set of lines?
>>
>>>> There is no such thing
>>>> as "beyond every finite set of lines".
>>>> Infinite sets are different from finite sets
>>>> but they do not contain anything
>>>> "beyond any finite set".

>>
>>> The decimal expansion of pi is not beyond any finite (i.e. rational)
>>> approximation?

>>
>> Since the decimal expansion of p is made up of digits in sequence, WM
>> needs to tell us which is the first of its digits tot exceeds finite
>> approximation?
>> --

>
> If there is not more then all finite approximations, then there is no
> uncountability, because all rational approximations belong to a
> countable set.
>


That was not what the question asked.

Your propensity for pretending at Socratic dialogue makes
reading this stuff a nightmare.

You have imposed the material restrictions. Your question
implies otherwise. In response, Virgil wants to know what finite
number is beyond finiteness.

If that sounds stupid, go look in a mirror.