Virgil
Posts:
4,674
Registered:
1/6/11
|
|
Re: Matheology � 062
Posted:
Jul 13, 2012 10:21 PM
|
|
In article <jtqf0d$v37$1@speranza.aioe.org>,
"LudovicoVan" <julio@diegidio.name> wrote:
> "Virgil" <virgil@ligriv.com> wrote in message
> news:virgil-15B4A8.18021513072012@bignews.usenetmonster.com...
> > In article
> > <2d6ca47c-a895-4bc6-b0ae-587879e1b7c2@s9g2000vbg.googlegroups.com>,
> > WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> >> On 13 Jul., 21:47, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> >> > In article
> >> > <fbaaf5f9-8368-423a-ab22-0155da82b...@v9g2000vbc.googlegroups.com>,
> <snip>
>
> >> > But now WM claims, as usual without proof, that that function MUST be
> >> > 'sort of continuous' at an accumulation point of its discontinuities.
>
> Rather you insensically claim that that is not the case. Can you prove it?
>
> >> Mathematics gives the improper limit oo.
> >> Set theory gives the limit 0.
> >> What would you believe to be correct?
> >
> > The proper VALUE at t = 0 is the number of balls which have been
> > inserted into the vase but not removed, but since every ball entered has
> > been removed
>
> Wrong.
>
> > , that must be 0.
>
> So you keep saying, with no proof. Show the proof.
>
> -LV
According to the original description for each n in N - {1,2,3,...},
ball n is removed at time t = -1/n < 0.
So which numbered balls, with numbers in N, have not been removed?
>
--
|
|
