On 3/28/2013 2:46 PM, Gus Gassmann wrote: > On 28/03/2013 3:38 PM, fom wrote: >> 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. > > I don't think so. I think the issue is that Mueckenheim, whom someone > decided to hire as a professor of mathematics at a third-rate > institution, manages to obfuscate just enough the distinction between > repeating and non-repeating decimals when he applies them to paths, and > that he is too dense to comprehend that. Crayon marks, indeed. >
Well, that is the real-world issue. It is what motivates Virgil to reply regularly to this nonsense.