Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Matheology § 152
Replies: 53   Last Post: Nov 19, 2012 4:49 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 William Hughes Posts: 2,330 Registered: 12/7/10
Re: Matheology § 152
Posted: Nov 17, 2012 3:21 PM

On Nov 17, 1:23 pm, "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote:
> "William Hughes" <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

> > On Nov 17, 9:59 am, "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote:
> >> "William Hughes" <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote in message

>
> >> > 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#Specia...>
>
> > 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#Sequen...>

Well, I could defend myself by pointing out that these are talking
about limits of sets (and any limit, e.g. the usual limit on real
numbers can be considered the limit of sets) and I was talking about
set limits. However, I don't think this is very convincing.
I will simply point out that the first defintion, does not apply
in this case.

A more fundemental problem is that there is no reason to
expect the cardinality of the B's to have anything to do
with the cardinality of A.

Eg. B_n = [-1/n,1/n]. Then A is {0}

More like the current situation.

B_n: {all rational numbers, q |
q can be written as k/n^2 (k an integer) AND q in [-1/n,1/n]}

Then B_n is finite. |B_n| grows without bound.
A= {0}, |A| = 1 (if you want A the empty set,the add the condition
that
q is nonzero)

So there is no reason to change the limit to make the cardinality of
the
limit equal to the limit of the cardinalities
(nor is there a problem that WM two limits are different)

Date Subject Author
11/16/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/16/12 William Hughes
11/16/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/16/12 LudovicoVan
11/16/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/16/12 Uirgil
11/16/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/16/12 LudovicoVan
11/16/12 Uirgil
11/16/12 William Hughes
11/16/12 Uirgil
11/17/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/17/12 LudovicoVan
11/17/12 LudovicoVan
11/17/12 Uirgil
11/17/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/17/12 Uirgil
11/17/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/17/12 LudovicoVan
11/17/12 William Hughes
11/17/12 trj
11/17/12 LudovicoVan
11/17/12 William Hughes
11/17/12 LudovicoVan
11/17/12 Uirgil
11/17/12 LudovicoVan
11/17/12 Uirgil
11/17/12 William Hughes
11/17/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/17/12 William Hughes
11/18/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/18/12 William Hughes
11/18/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/18/12 William Hughes
11/18/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/18/12 William Hughes
11/18/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/18/12 Vurgil
11/18/12 Vurgil
11/18/12 Vurgil
11/19/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/19/12 Vurgil
11/18/12 Vurgil
11/19/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/19/12 Vurgil
11/17/12 Uirgil
11/17/12 Uirgil
11/17/12 trj
11/17/12 Uirgil
11/17/12 Uirgil
11/17/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/17/12 Virgil
11/18/12 gus gassmann