Date: Mar 28, 2013 3:54 PM
Author: fom
Subject: Re: Matheology § 233

On 3/28/2013 2:46 PM, Gus Gassmann wrote:
> On 28/03/2013 3:38 PM, fom wrote:
>> On 3/28/2013 7:48 AM, WM wrote:
>>>>
>>> If the set of all rationals exists, then that limit exists already in
>>> that set. Combining paths with loss of nodes is not useful to increase
>>> the number of paths.

>>
>> But no one is talking about whether the sequence
>> of rationals converging to a rational is in the
>> set of rationals.
>>
>> The issue is a representation of apparent geometric
>> completeness within an arithmetical system.

>
> I don't think so. I think the issue is that Mueckenheim, whom someone
> decided to hire as a professor of mathematics at a third-rate
> institution, manages to obfuscate just enough the distinction between
> repeating and non-repeating decimals when he applies them to paths, and
> that he is too dense to comprehend that. Crayon marks, indeed.
>


Well, that is the real-world issue. It is what motivates
Virgil to reply regularly to this nonsense.

He has stated as much.