```Date: Mar 24, 2013 9:57 AM
Author: fom
Subject: Re: Matheology § 224

On 3/24/2013 4:08 AM, WM wrote:> On 24 Mrz., 01:41, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:>> In article>> <5c674f26-92a7-44ed-b080-692d23ec3...@g4g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,>>>>   WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:>>> Do you think it is not a contradiction, to have the statements:>>> 1) 0.111... has more 1's than any finite sequence of 1's.>>> 2) But if we remove all finite sequences of 1's, then nothing remains.>>>> In proper English (1) should read>>     "the infinite sequence represented by 0.111... has more 1's in it>>     than in any finite sequence of 1's.">> You seem to have difficulties when terminology of proper mathematics> is in question.You are repeatedly asked for proper definitions of youruse of terms in statements.  That is what proper mathematicsdictates.> 0.111... is an infinite sequence that represents a> numberWell, the not-so-finite finite reappears.  WM is the sometimesultrafinitist, who is always assuming infinity.>- it is not only representing an infinite sequence.That is why proper definitions are needed.All '0.111...' in these discussions is that no one can takeaway your crayons.  No definition. No intelligible meaning.>>>> And if WM wishes to prevail, he WM must explain how he intends to remove>> all finite sequences of 1's without removing all 1's in the process.>> That is simple: All finite sequences like> 0.1> 0.11> 0.111> ...> can be removed from 1/9 without ever removing all.That's an assertion.He asked for explanation.Please provide that which had been requested.> So, if 1/9 has a> decimal representation, something must remain, nat least the> counterfactual belief of matheologians.>>Told you before -- mathematics does not deal withthe truth conditions of counterfactuals.  The onlyarguing from belief here is you.See "conceited reasoner"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Doxastic_logic#Types_of_reasoners>> The fact is that one cannot remove every set containing a natural from a>> family of sets some of which contain that natural of without removing>> that natural from the union of set of remaining sets.>> of without removing? Proper English?Proper Mathematics?The occasional typographic error is far more decipherablethan your theory of monotonic inclusive crayon marks.>>> I provedYou have *proven* nothing.Once again, the only thing close to *proof* with whichyou may be associated is the result of WH's patientattempts to discern anything close to rational fromyour remarks.
```