>>1382779>that's literally what i saidNowhere in
>>1382591 does it say that "0.0...1" is "not a number", in fact the entire "argument" depends on it being a number, which it is not.
You can't, for example, perform something like the diagonalisation argument with "0.00000...1", because it doesn't even have a clearly defined algorithm to answer "what is the nth digit of this number?".
>the nth digit of the number is zeroThen where is the 1? "Every digit is zero" gives the digits of "0", and does not describe "0.0...1" because it will never produce a 1.
Unless you can demonstrate that 0 and "0.00000...1" are not already definitionally the same thing, you don't have an argument because one of your premises is your conclusion so you're deriving your conclusion from your conclusion.
>0.99999... ?The 0th digit of 0.99999... is 0, and the following digits are 9; the 0th digit of 1 is 1, and the following digits are 0. It is clearly not the case that a function that gives the nth digit of "1" and a function that gives the nth digit of "0.99999..." are the same thing.
