On Nov 23, 12:13 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > 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. Yes > Analysis infers from the limit the number of required digits, Piffle.
