In article <firstname.lastname@example.org> WM <email@example.com> writes: > On 30 Nov., 14:39, "Dik T. Winter" <Dik.Win...@cwi.nl> wrote: > > > I think you are confusing the limit of a sequence of sets (which is a > > set) and the limit of the sequence of the cardinalities of sets ( which > > is a cardinality). =A0In general: the limit of the cardinalities is not > > necessarily the cardinality of the limit, however much you would like > > that to be the case. > > If the limit of cardinalities is 1, then the limit set has 1 element.
No because the limit of cardinalities is not necessarily the cardinality of the limit, as I wrote just above.
> In my case the minimum cardinality is one and the minimum set has 1 > element.
Yes, so what?
> This covers the limits of cardinality and set.
It covers nothing at all, because it is not about the limit of the sequence of sets. -- dik t. winter, cwi, science park 123, 1098 xg amsterdam, nederland, +31205924131 home: bovenover 215, 1025 jn amsterdam, nederland; http://www.cwi.nl/~dik/