Received: by 10.66.86.100 with SMTP id o4mr1939031paz.2.1353209652269;
        Sat, 17 Nov 2012 19:34:12 -0800 (PST)
MIME-Version: 1.0
Path: 6ni92398pbd.1!nntp.google.com!news.glorb.com!news-out.readnews.com!news-xxxfer.readnews.com!s09-11.readnews.com!unm2.readnews.com.POSTED!not-for-mail
X-Trace: DXC=\L^:8aBn6QAT]_7XTD^BDOk\2KDSF=2@BFV0LA4MIjQKmTIDj6@1WaL^]]CW6JBjaIQf\HKLQU7?CNOf5259IDEHiP87X9ORP4GT`4l^nNTV\D34WYk5S`D4E
X-Complaints-To: killthespammer@usenetmonster.com
From: Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com>
Newsgroups: sci.logic,sci.math
Subject: Re: Matheology § 152
Organization: Anon
References: <24e2d593-d2fc-4163-96f0-7f812a47fe33@l18g2000vbv.googlegroups.com> <uirgil-281BFA.14403316112012@BIGNEWS.USENETMONSTER.COM> <f58b4287-182c-4a02-9e1f-74b57789bce7@b12g2000vbg.googlegroups.com> <uirgil-CA47B7.10575217112012@BIGNEWS.USENETMONSTER.COM> <126c3310-d023-4f33-9b13-6cac84751832@o8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>
User-Agent: MT-NewsWatcher/3.5.2 (PPC Mac OS X)
Date: Sat, 17 Nov 2012 20:34:11 -0700
Message-ID: <virgil-C81617.20341117112012@BIGNEWS.USENETMONSTER.COM>
Lines: 77
NNTP-Posting-Host: 3099fc82.newsreader.readnews.com

In article 
<126c3310-d023-4f33-9b13-6cac84751...@o8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
 WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> On 17 Nov., 18:57, Uirgil <uir...@uirgil.ur> wrote:
> 
> > > > > Consider the following sequence of decimal numbers, consisting of
> > > > > digits 0 and 1
> >
> > > > > 01.
> > > > > 0.1
> > > > > 010.1
> > > > > 01.01
> > > > > 0101.01
> > > > > 010.101
> > > > > 01010.101
> > > > > 0101.0101
> > > > > ...
> >
> > > > > which, when indexed by natural numbers, yilooks like this:
> >
> > > > > 0_2 1_1 .
> > > > > 0_2 . 1_1
> > > > > 0_4 1_3 0_2 . 1_1
> > > > > 0_4 1_3 . 0_2 1_1
> > > > > 0_6 1_5 0_4 1_3 . 0_2 1_1
> > > > > 0_6 1_5 0_4 . 1_3 0_2 1_1
> > > > > 0_8 1_7 0_6 1_5 0_4 . 1_3 0_2 1_1
> > > > > 0_8 1_7 0_6 1_5 . 0_4 1_3 0_2 1_1
> > > > > ...
> 
> > While every real mathematician knows
> 
> This sequence grows without limit.
> >
> > > This can be proved by taking any number n and showing
> > > that there is a number k such that all for terms a(j) of the sequence
> > > with k > j we have a(j) > n. Proof: For given n take k = n + 10.
> >
> > ow does that work for the sequence a(j) = 0 for all j?
> 
> Is 0 larger than any number n?

There is no number which is larger than any number.
> 
> >
> > > Every set theorist knows that the sequence of sets of indices left of
> > > the decimal point has the limit empty set. This is an requirement of
> > > set theory.
> >
> > Then let us see which axiom,  or set of axioms, of some set theory which
> > actually requires such nonsense. say among the axioms for ZFC, for
> > example.
> 
> Try to learn it. Look what William Hughes just explains here.
> >
> >
> >
> > > And finally everybody knows that decimal numbers, by definition,
> > > cannot consist of digits that have no indexs.
> >
> > Numbers (decimal or otherwise) can exist without any digits of any sort,
> > but decimal numerals can not.
> 
> But the numbers in above list exist with their digits.
> >
> > Since a numeral is merely a name for a number,
> 
> the set of all numbers is countable.

Every numeral being a number does not limit the number of numbers, 
it only, at most, limits the number of numerals.

So that, as usual, LV has things backwards.
--