|
|
Re: Matheology § 152
Posted:
Nov 19, 2012 1:50 AM
|
|
On 19 Nov., 01:10, Vurgil <Vur...@arg.erg> wrote:
> In article
> <b8d67bf3-ec24-4451-8573-aa0a52799...@y6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
> WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > On 17 Nov., 23:08, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 17, 5:23 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>
> > > > On 17 Nov., 21:21, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > > > (nor is there a problem that WM two limits are different)-
>
> > > > Interesting. A nice claim.
> > > > The limit of a sequence may depend on the method which is used to
> > > > calculate it?
>
> > > Nope, but it does depend on which limit is used.
>
> > The Cauchy-limit or the Cantor-limit?
> > 1/((((((10^0)/10)+10^1)/10)+10^2)/10)+ = 0 (Cauchy)
> > 1/((((((10^0)/10)+10^1)/10)+10^2)/10)+ > 1 (Cantor)
>
> Theses are not, as claimed by WM inin another post, anything like
> continued fractions, so it is not clear what the finite terms are
> supposed to be.
It is clear to every sufficiently intelligent reader.
>
> And without knowing that, no limit can possibly be determined.
>
> Now if is just that "1/((((((10^0)/10)+10^1)/10)+10^2)/10)+ " is
> sufficiently ambiguous that Cauchy and Cantor disagree on what the
> finite sequences are which leads to this expression, I am not at all
> surprized.-
Thank you for implicitly confessing that you do not see a way how the
set theoretical limit { } of the indices of the integer-digits in
> > 0_2 1_1 .
> > 0_2 . 1_1
> > 0_4 1_3 0_2 . 1_1
> > 0_4 1_3 . 0_2 1_1
> > 0_6 1_5 0_4 1_3 . 0_2 1_1
> > 0_6 1_5 0_4 . 1_3 0_2 1_1
> > 0_8 1_7 0_6 1_5 0_4 . 1_3 0_2 1_1
> > 0_8 1_7 0_6 1_5 . 0_4 1_3 0_2 1_1
> > ...
can be avoided or how the application of set theory in calculating the
limit can be interpreted as "another" limit.
Regards, WM
|
|
