On 3/28/2013 7:48 AM, WM wrote: >> > If the set of all rationals exists, then that limit exists already in > that set. Combining paths with loss of nodes is not useful to increase > the number of paths.
But no one is talking about whether the sequence of rationals converging to a rational is in the set of rationals.
The issue is a representation of apparent geometric completeness within an arithmetical system.
The issue is the logical form of such a construction.
That you believe your crayon marks justify a material belief in some abstract, non-material objects but deny a material belief in other abstract, non-material objects verges on sheer lunacy.
Crayon marks have nothing to do with it.
Belief has nothing to do with it.
And, your ability to call certain crayon marks "names" has nothing to do with it either. You failed your science lesson on those days too.