On 23 Nov., 19:12, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Nov 23, 1:54 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > On 23 Nov., 18:30, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > 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.- > > Nope adding irrelevant stuff does not help.
Why then did you do so with your sequence 1, 10, 100, ...?
> It's still Piffle to say > > Analysis infers from the limit the number of required digits
It is obvious that you don't like analysis. Try to understand the function called logarithm with base 10. The number of digits is [lgx] + 1.
