```Date: Jun 14, 2013 7:05 PM
Author: Tucsondrew@me.com
Subject: Re: Matheology § 288

On Friday, June 14, 2013 3:37:13 PM UTC-7, Virgil wrote:> In article <d2c0ba71-6f46-4dcf-949e-9f2b22edbb3b@googlegroups.com>,> >  Zeit Geist <tucsondrew@me.com> wrote:> > > > > On Friday, June 14, 2013 11:23:28 AM UTC-7, muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote:> > > > On Friday, 14 June 2013 20:08:07 UTC+2, Zeit Geist wrote:> > > > > > > > > Writing all numbers one line, .111111..., is a Union.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > And you believe that a union over sets that are unions of all preceding > > > > sets yields more than these sets. Your choice. But not a rational idea.> > > > > > > > > > The amount of 1's in 1/9 is the same, not more, as the number of lines in > > > being unioned.> > > > What does "the number of lines in being unioned" mean in proper English?> Fine.  How about "the cardinality of the set to which the union is applied"?> > > > > It's just more than any single finite line has. > > > So?> > > > In your wild weird world of WMytheology, more than finite is not > > allowed, so your triangles must all have last lines which are finite.> >  > > And all such idiot restrictions inside WMytheology are irrelevant > > outside of WMytheology. > > > > > > > > > > > >> The list given above does not contain aleph_0 1's in any direction.> > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Really, can you write the whole list then?> > > > One can describe it completely without having to write it all out digit > > by digit, and 0.111..., at least to those who understand standard > > mathematical notation, is just such a description.> Yes, I know that.  I was challenging WM to write it out.> > > > > > > > > > > > That is not relevant as an argument against anti-symmetry.> > > > > > > > You should be able to see from the symmetrical construction that symmetry > > > > has to prevail.> > > > > > > > > > The symmetry does prevIail.> > > > > > NOT as you have diagrammed it. In ALL your diagramming, all finite > > triangles are represented as right triangles with one set of sides > > vertical and the other horizontal.> No my diagram at is WM's.  My arguments use Unions.> > > The three Unions in the "completed" list all have same number of elements.> > > It's just like in any finite sub-list.> That is exactly what I said.> > Except that, at least outside WMytheology, the vertical and diagonal > > sides  of the limit diagram are endless so that any imagined third side > > must be missing both ends, and your alleged triangle has only one vertex.> I don't know of any theory that defines "triangle" in such a manner.And WM certainly has not provide a clear definition for it in this setting.> > > > > > > Saying that infinity does not exist in "Reality" and ZFC assumes infinity,> > > does make make ZFC an invalid Mathematical construct.> > > > Mathematics is not about physical realities, but about mental realities, > > which are quite different, and both are quite different from > > WMytheology.Big OOPS!!!  That should read "does NOT make ZFC an invalid Math...".I actually find the ironic fact that, the Mathematics that do NOTcorrespond to reality to be the most fruitful in explaining physicalreality.> --ZG
```