LudovicoVan
Posts:
3,008
From:
London
Registered:
2/8/08
|
|
Re: Matheology § 152
Posted:
Nov 17, 2012 12:22 PM
|
|
"William Hughes" <wpihughes@gmail.com> wrote in message
news:1ec0c2cc-f926-4fd4-a413-37ba8809ea80@y8g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...
> On Nov 17, 9:59 am, "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote:
>> "William Hughes" <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:28bff553-f679-4e23-8932-a1fb42f1b364@c17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...
>>
>> > Note that *set* limits have some important properties.
>>
>> > Given a sequence of sets {B_1,B_2,B_3,...}
>> > then the set limit always exists (it
>> > may be the empty set).
>>
>> > If we have
>>
>> > A = set limit {B_1,B_2,B_3....}
>>
>> > Then
>>
>> > A is a set
>> > A cannot contain an element that is not contained
>> > in any of the B's
>>
>> Williams going around, in circles:
>>
>> It was already mentioned that it is wrong to use that specific definition
>> to
>> solve the balls and vase problem.
>>
>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_superior_and_limit_inferior#Special_case:_discrete_metric>
>
> The problem is the above applies to *any* definition of a *set* limit.
But those definitions are a *specific* case of these:
<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_superior_and_limit_inferior#Sequences_of_sets>
I sometimes wonder which planet you come from.
-LV
|
|
