In article <1cea5e31-f203-4a9c-9f5e-059abe42ac8d@f5g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 25 Okt., 10:10, SPQR <S...@roman.gov> wrote: > > In article > > <8998fd80-2b73-4d3c-9001-6930b3ed5...@p18g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > > > > > > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > On 25 Okt., 03:34, "|-| E R C" <herc.of.z...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > All you need is 2 sides with a right angle between them! > > > > > That is a good idea! > > > > > So let's use the following configuration: > > > > > 1 > > > > > 1,2 > > > 2 > > > > > 1,2,3 > > > 2 > > > 3 > > > ... > > > > > Is there any matheologician who denies that both sequences have limit > > > omega as a maximum? > > > > Possibly matheologist WM does not deny it, but any reasonably competent > > mathematician would. > > > > Neither sequence, nor any infinite sequences of strictly increasing > > terms, ever has a "maximum". Such sequences may have limits but since > > those limits cannot be members of the sequences, neither can they be > > maximums of such sequences.- > > The you deny that the sequences include their limit ordinal omega? You > deny that each of both sequences has a limit sequence with aleph_0 > elements?
Yes and No! I deny that any sequence of finite naturals includes anything other than finite naturals, but not that such infinite sequences can contain aleph_0 distinct elements. > > That is my position too.
