"WM" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message news:email@example.com... >On 15 Jul., 15:55, "dilettante" <n...@nonono.no> wrote:
>> >Second, instead of 1 and 0 you can use the indexes themselves: The >> >limit of the sequence >> >21 >> >2.1 >> >432.1 >> >43.21 >> >6543.21 >> >654.321 >> ... >> >is not 0 but oo, in mathematics. >> >http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~mueckenh/GU/GU12c.PPT#403,25,Folie25 >> >Third: I happened to publish § 077, by pure accident it gives just the >> >opinion of a leading set theorist. Perhaps that will convice you. >> >> Really? Convince me of what?
>Convincing you that matheology is nonsense, because matheologians >support what you correctly deny.
>> Appeal to authority is irrelevant in >> mathematics. >> >> >Fourth, from your mathematically healthy reaction I obtain that you >> >are not among the lost souls of matheology. That fills my heart with >> >joy. >> >Regards, WM > >> Don't get too happy. We agree that the limits of these sequences of >> NUMBERS >> is infinity. We don't agree about what you say that has to do with set >> theory.
>But it has. If you do not see it, then deterioration of your brain by >matheology has been advanced too far.
> And the fact remains: you lack intellectual integrity,
>It seems that I have hit a sore point.
Not really. Just letting you know that I notice.
>>> as proved by >>> your clipping of remarks about one sequence and trying to pass them off >>> as >>> remarks about something else.
>There is nothing "else". The above sequence has limit infinity as has >the sequence with odd numbers replaced by 1 and even numbers replaced >by 0.
Yeah, we never disagreed about that. The fact is, you snipped my remark about that limit of a sequence of NUMBERS and pasted it into a different thread about a limit of a sequence of SETS, as if I were talking about the limit under discussion there, which you knew I wasn't. You don't seem to see anything wrong with this behavior. We disagree about more than set theory.
>> You did not make this mistake inadvertently;
>It is not a mistake, unless showing a contradiction was a mistake.
>Like it or like it not, set theory has been shown a big deceit. Future >generations will lough about those fools who honestly have talked >about unaccessible cardinals and that stuff.