Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.


Me
Posts:
1,628
Registered:
1/23/16


Re: Defining the "number" correctly.
Posted:
Nov 8, 2017 2:13 PM


On Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 8:51:45 AM UTC+1, John Gabriel wrote: > On Tuesday, 7 November 2017 21:22:31 UTC5, Me wrote: > > > > Moreover you are using the notion of limit in disguise when stating > > "As n > oo the sum of the columns becomes ..." etc. > > > Your birdbrain is brainwashed to think of limit, but the idea of LUB was > around long before limit and calculus.
Of *WHAT*?! LUB, the /least upper bound/?
Holy shit! You know, the _LUB property_ holds *in the context of real numbers*  but not in the context of the rational numbers. (Hint: That's why each and every Cauchy sequence has a limit.)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Leastupperbound_property
Actually, the LUB is QUITE CLOSELY related to the notion of limit, you know:
"If a sequence of real numbers is increasing and bounded above, then its supremum (LUB) is the limit."
> As n > oo has ZERO to do with infinity. It means as n becomes indefinitely > large,
*lol* n e IN certainly NEVER becomes "indefinitely large", after all there are no "infinitely large numbers" in IN.
> there is a limit.
Oh thanks, that made my day! :)
You know my claim just WAS that "you are using the notion of /limit/ in disguise when stating 'As n > oo the sum of the columns becomes ...'"
I'm glad you agree.



