Date: Mar 28, 2013 4:05 PM
Subject: Re: Matheology § 233
On 3/28/2013 2:54 PM, fom wrote:
> 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.
It is *the obfuscation* that motivates Virgil.
He has stated as much.