In article <50dd0545-5eeb-421a-880f-93e7527dfc6d@n5g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 21 Nov., 16:24, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > Your basic problem remains. You continue to talk > > about "the" limit as if there was only one. > > The real sequence has a limit. And if you dislike infinity as an > improper limit, then take the reciprocals. They have *the* limit 0. > This sequence is independent of anything else but its terms or its > definition. > > Set theory shows that *this sequence* has a limit without indices on > the left hand side, and hence has another limit (< 1) or no limit. Or > the reciprocals have a limit > 0. This result does in no way depend on > anything else but set theory being incompatible with mathematics. >
It had far more to do with WM being incompatible with mathematics. --
