Date: Apr 13, 2013 12:47 AM
Author: Scott Berg
Subject: Re: Matheology � 246
"WM" <email@example.com> wrote in message
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:
>> 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
>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
>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.