Re: Review of Mueckenheims book.

In article <1173165366.640448.190440@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On 5 Mrz., 01:22, "*** T. Winter" <***.Win...@xxxxxx> wrote:
In article <1172914305.525476.55...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
mueck...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx writes:

> > > > But in all this is nonsense. The sequence of digits indeed does
> > > > not
> > > > converge.
> > >
> > > That means it does not exist as a recognizable entity.
> >
> > Oh. I would think that also non-converging sequences are recognisable
> > entities. Consider the sequence 0 1 0 1 0 1 ..., a pretty
> > recognisable
> > entity, I would think.
>
> Fairly well. We know at least that there appears never a digit 3 in
> it.

So your statement "that means it does not exist as a recognizable entity"
was nonense?


No.

Yes!

To know that there appears never a digit 3 is better than not to
know it but it is not sufficient to recognize the sequence.

Any repeating sequence in any basal representatain is a rational, which
according to MW's claims elsewhere is in trichotomy with all other
rationals and therefore known exactly.



> We can never know the digit at position [pi*10^10^100]

Irrelevant for rationals.

Well, according to Cauchy, yes.

Although he was an engineer, he knew too little about reality. Not his
fault - he lived too early.

Since WM is not even an engineer, it is not his fault that he doesn't
know what he is talking about.
.

Quantcast