Date: Apr 13, 2013 12:47 AM
Author: Scott Berg
Subject: Re: Matheology � 246


"WM" <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote in message
news:b3f7e8ac-f541-46a5-951a-d040162e5014@a3g2000vbr.googlegroups.com...
On 12 Apr., 21:42, "AMiews" <inva...@invalid.com> wrote:
> "WM" <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote in message
> > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

<snip>

>> wrong. repeating sequences of bits in an infinitely long string indicate
>> representation as a fraction.


>Since there is no topology defined for Cantor's binary sequences,
>there is no chance to determine a limit of wmwmwmwm...


balonie,
you are only complaining about the three dots or periods " ... "
indicating repeating in that fashion, so get over it...

>
>> >Most of them cannot be written by finite expressions. And they cannot
>> >be written as infinite expressions.

>>
>> wrong. you seem ill at ease with infinite representations of numbers


>Have you ever seen an infinite expression? Do you think that 0.111...
>is an infinite expression?


it is short hand for one,
the "..." mean repeated, usally one uses a bar over the last repeated
numbers, but cant do that with text.


> 1/9 or 0.111... are very finite expressions

yes and you are fussing over notation convention, meaning you are unfamiliar
with math(s)

>for infinite sequences. But those sequences are not available.

why ? where did they go ? if they were infinite, they would fill up your
room...


>And
>every d_n of a numerical Cantor-list is the last digit of a
>terminating decimal.
>Never, do you understand, never anybody has seen or used a d_n that
>does not belong to a terminating decimal.


you seem confused by standard math notation here. Irrationals no one has
seen the end.

>
>Therefore Cantor proves that the countable set of rationals is
>uncountable.


that is what you say, but study up on common math notation first.

>
>Regards, WM