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

"WM" <> wrote in message
On 12 Apr., 21:42, "AMiews" <> wrote:
> "WM" <> wrote in message
> > WM <> wrote:


>> 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...

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

>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

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

>Regards, WM