On 1 Dez., 13:10, "Dik T. Winter" <Dik.Win...@cwi.nl> wrote: > In article <887fb198-aa2f-46ae-ab6a-91a67cb73...@u20g2000vbq.googlegroups.com> WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> 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.
You may write this as often as you like, but you are wrong. If there is a limit set then there is a limit cardinality, namely the number of elements in that limit set. Everything else is nonsense.