In article <db19ad29-d6fd-4adc-a8fe-be3e3578ca68@w1g2000vbx.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@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: not estimated > > Analysis says there are infinitely many 1's distinguished by their > positions which are an abbreviation for the exponents of 10.
How can WM claim that analysis says there are infinitely many 1's when, at least in WM's eyes, analysis does not accept that there can be infinitely many of anything. > --
