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