In a deposition submitted under oath, Matt Eggleston said:
TH> RM> No number is finite.  2 can be 2.00000001 or 1.999999 or 2.1 or
TH> RM> 2.0001. Infinity seems to be imbedded within the very existence of 
e
 ME> TH>Could someone please explain to me how 2.00000001 is equal to 2,
 ME> when there TH>is a clear difference of .00000001?
 ME> The author appears to be using a floating abstraction confusing the
 ME> variability of nature ("1 big apple + 1 little apple = 2 apples but
 ME> 2.00000001 or 1.999999 or 2.1 STANDARD apples") with some nebulous
 ME> idea of the infinite, then justifying the floating abstraction with a
 ME> reverse concept of significant digits.
 ME> The fact is, of course, that all REAL numbers and all REAL objects are
 ME> finite in fact.  Infinity is only a potential.
    But you cannot mathematically prove that infinity is only a
 potential, whereas there are many (if not infinite) mathematical
 concepts which can be proven to be infinite.  As Cantor, the inventor
 of set theory, in which there are many infinite sets, said, "...in
 truth the potentially infinite has only a borrowed reality, insofar as
 a potentially infinite concept always points toward a logically prior
 actually infinite concept whose existence it depends on." (Georg
 Cantor, _Gesammelte Abhandlungen_, Berlin: Springer Verlag, 1932,
 pg. 404.
... And smale foweles maken melodye that slepen al the nyght with open eye.
--- PPoint 2.05
---------------