In article <fb41db64-83af-4ce4-a297-6bd5b20697d8@ib4g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> 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, ...?
To show you why! > > > It's still Piffle to say > > > > Analysis infers from the limit the number of required digits
That analysis infers an impossibility, unless WM can actually show us an unabbreviated string of the required numbers of digits. > > It is obvious that you don't like analysis.
We like it is its original form a good deal better than in the corrupted form WM keeps trying to sell to us. --
