# Re: Matheology § 030

*From*: Uergil <Uergil@xxxxxxx>*Date*: Wed, 06 Jun 2012 16:15:45 -0600

In article <jqog8u$dtt$1@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,

"LudovicoVan" <julio@xxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

"Uergil" <Uergil@xxxxxxx> wrote in messageActually, if there are infinitely many of its digits known, or at least

news:Uergil-31F923.14460806062012@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

In article<snipped>

<c40f5972-0293-41fa-ba4e-d6a6875c9946@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,

WM <mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

But irrational numbers in fact are not available as sequences of

digits.

0.1234567891011121314151617181920... is an irrational expressed as a

series of digits.

And so is .10100100010000100000...

The sequence of digits does not tell which irrational it is.

knowable, which there are in this case, that tells us exactly which real

it is.

--

"Ignorance is preferable to error, and he is less

remote from the- truth who believes nothing than

he who believes what is wrong.

Thomas Jefferson

.

**Follow-Ups**:**Re: Matheology § 030***From:*WM

**Re: Matheology § 030***From:*LudovicoVan

**References**:**Matheology § 030***From:*WM

**Re: Matheology § 030***From:*Uergil

**Re: Matheology § 030***From:*LudovicoVan

- Prev by Date:
**Re: Matheology § 022** - Next by Date:
**Re: YAQ from me** - Previous by thread:
**Re: Matheology § 030** - Next by thread:
**Re: Matheology § 030** - Index(es):