Uirgil
Posts:
181
Registered:
4/18/12
|
|
Re: Matheology � 152
Posted:
Nov 17, 2012 10:27 PM
|
|
In article <k88p6q$sd$1@dont-email.me>,
"LudovicoVan" <julio@diegidio.name> wrote:
> "Uirgil" <uirgil@uirgil.ur> wrote in message
> news:uirgil-B4A0C7.11095217112012@BIGNEWS.USENETMONSTER.COM...
> > In article <k88h5n$eeo$1@dont-email.me>,
> > "LudovicoVan" <julio@diegidio.name> wrote:
> >> "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_
> >> >> cas
> >> >> e:_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_o
> >> f_s
> >> ets>
> >>
> >> I sometimes wonder which planet you come from.
> >
> > Irrelevant Ad Hom noted!
> >
> > Actually, William HUghes' "definition" is quite carefully non-specific,
> > and while it certainly includes both a lim_sups and a lim_infs, is in no
> > way limited to only those.
> >
> > So that, as usual, LV has things inverted.
>
> The one who has got something inverted here is you.
Another in the long line of LV's irrelevant ad homs noted!
>
> You are again invited to stop the spam and disturbance
>
> -LV
>
I would, but I have no power to shut off either WM or LV.
|
|
