The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Defining the "number" correctly.
Replies: 1   Last Post: Nov 8, 2017 2:13 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View  

Posts: 1,716
Registered: 1/23/16
Re: Defining the "number" correctly.
Posted: Nov 8, 2017 2:13 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On Wednesday, November 8, 2017 at 8:51:45 AM UTC+1, John Gabriel wrote:
> On Tuesday, 7 November 2017 21:22:31 UTC-5, 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.)

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.

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.