|
|
Re: Matheology § 062
Posted:
Jul 11, 2012 5:54 PM
|
|
On Jul 11, 5:29 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> In article
> <102d7112-2118-4971-9b90-498b1a1c3...@v9g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
>
> WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > On 11 Jul., 02:54, Gus Gassmann <horand.gassm...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Jul 10, 7:25 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
>
> > > > What is requires is that lim ( f(n) ) = f( lim (n)) for some function
> > > > defined on |N u {oo} and two different limiting processes, since the
> > > > values of f(n) are sets of balls, not merely natural numbers like n.
>
> > > > And no one has yet proved, or even can prove, that
> > > > lim ( f(n) ) = f( lim (n)) for the function f in question.
>
> > > I have my doubts that Mueckenheim can even write down an expression
> > > for this f.-
>
> > If you would not blind yourself systematically, you would know it.
Would know what? It is interesting that my two meatiest comments were
snipped, leaving only this piece of fluff. Nonetheless, it seems I was
right: Mueckenheim *is* too stupid to write an expression for f(n).
QED.
> > We have as a cardinality the number of indexed places before the
> > decimal point. And we have the number that results from these indexed
> > places.
> > So 654 has 3 indexed places and means a number > 600.
>
> > In mathematics both diverges but has an improper limit, namely
> > infinity.
And once again, Mueckenheim is too stupid to understand that that is
meaningless. Of course card(M_n) tends to infinity with n. That and
$5.00 is going to get one a cup of coffee. This question still is as
always: Whast is card (lim M_n)? Mueckenheim is still either too
stupid or too dishonest to realize that he has to work out lim M_n
*first* (and I think he indicated he knows how to do that), and the
cardinality of that limit second. It`s not like commutativity is a
sacred property. It is violated in function composition (as I hope
Mueckenheim understands, even if he may not have acknowledged it), in
many operations involving limits (as in the present case, much as he
wants to avoid the issue) and in the multiplication of all but a
billion groups.
> But in mathematics, just as in set theory, the final result is
> |N \ |N = {}.
>
> > In set theory, this is not the case. The number limit is oo - oo but the
> > limit of the cardinality is 0..
NO!!! What a blithering idiot. The cardinality of the limit is zero,
which emphatically is not the same thing. I come back to the same
assessment over and over: Mueckenheim is mentally unfit to to
understand this point, which means he is mentally unfit to teach
anything except possibly basket weaving.
> So that oo - oo cannot be 0 in mathematics?
Of course it cannot. The great Professor Doktor Mueckenheim decrees
that it cannot, and that should be enough authority for anyone.
|
|
