email@example.com (Gregory L. Hansen) wrote in message news:<firstname.lastname@example.org>... > In article <email@example.com>, > <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote: > >In article <20011130094007.686$Ng@newsreader.com>, > > David W. Cantrell <DWCantrell@sigmaxi.org> writes: > >> > >>I think it quite regrettable that the correct intuition of children is > >>often quashed by some teachers (well meaning, but ignorant) who insist > >>that statements such as 1/infinity = 0 are nonsense. > > > >I don't - I find it admirable! I think sloppy imprecise thinking should > >be discouraged at as early an age as possible. > > Must we really insist that the children say limit(x->oo) 1/x = 0?
The problem is not this. Its because infinity as it is is not defined correctly. Infinity is a state of things, not a number. If you want to say limit(x->The-largest-number-you-can-put-in-here) 1/x = 0 then yes that makes sense.
Infinity as it is right now means 2 things. That a certain progression is not finite and the-largest-number-you-can-put-in-here. What's important is to make the distinction between the 2. 2 symbols should be used for this, not one with 2 meanings.