On 23 Nov., 17:09, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 23, 11:56 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > > > On 23 Nov., 15:42, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > On Nov 23, 10:32 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > On 23 Nov., 15:16, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > On Nov 23, 10:11 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > > > On 23 Nov., 13:27, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > So to summarize: > > > > > > > > Analysis: > > > > > > > limit in real numbers: unbounded > > > > > > > (oo in extended reals) > > > > > > > > limit of set of 1's: > > > > > oo = Limit[n-->oo] SUM[k=0 to n] 10^k > > > > = 1*10^0 + 1*10^1 + 1*10^2 + 1*10^3 + ... > > > > = ...111 > > > > this piece of nonsense has nothing to do > > > with the limit of the sequence > > > > 1 > > > 10 > > > 100 > > > ... > > > > which is oo = Limit[n-->oo] 10^k > > > and it not represented by any numeral. > > > That is of little interest! > > On the contrary, the fact that the analytic *limit* > cannot be described in terms of digits is > the point.-
No, that is not a point. The analytic limit can be calculated. Analysis infers from the limit the number of required digits, namely oo. This is all correct. Set theory cannot describe the limit and not describe the number of digits.
