```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 expressionsyes 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
```