In article <5W0O7.86012$YD.email@example.com>, "Paul Lutus" <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes: >"Wade Ramey" <email@example.com> wrote in message >news://wrameyxiii-5DAB81.firstname.lastname@example.org... >> In article <waYN7.83483$YD.email@example.com>, >> "Paul Lutus" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: >> >> > The example under discussion -- >> > >> > lim x -> 0, 1/x = infinity >> >> Now you're just lying, which seems an odd strategy, because anyone can >back >> up a few posts and find the example under discussion: >> >> > Say it correctly, or don't bother saying it at all. >> > >> > lim x -> infinity, 1/x = 0. This is a limit, not an identity. The equals >> > sign in the limit expression doesn't have its usual meaning -- in this >case >> > it means "approaches," not "equals." > >You are lying, not me. Both examples make the same point, or are you too >ignorant to see that?
No, they don't make the same point. In one case the limit exists, in the other it does not.
> If one case actually means "approaches" as opposed to >"equals", then they both do, regardless of the specific outcome. It cannot >mean "equals" only when that is convenient. > It means "equals" when there is a limit, else you can't write "=". Now, reread your statement above, regarding ignorance.
Mati Meron | "When you argue with a fool, email@example.com | chances are he is doing just the same"