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.