"WM" wrote in message news:firstname.lastname@example.org... > On 15 Jul., 17:29, "dilettante" <n...@nonono.no> wrote: > > > 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. > > There is not the slightest difference! > If one and the same supertask > > 01 > 0.1 > 010.1 > 01.01 > 0101.01 > 010.101 > ... > > is described in set theory, then the limit is < 1. If it is described > in mathematics, then the limit is oo.
Wrong, as amply demonstrated over all possible approaches.
> If mathematics is based upon set theory, then there is a contradiction > in set theory.
There is no contradiction whatsoever, unless anyone shows otherwise.