In article <cc2e0bbd-0188-47d8-9d93-a538a73e1182@n5g2000vbk.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 23 Nov., 19:51, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > On Nov 23, 2:23 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > On 23 Nov., 19:12, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > 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. > > > > Saying oo has an infinite number of digits is nonsense > > It is not nonsense since set theory has "improved" analysis.
Set theory has certainly not corrupted analysis to anywhere nearly the extent that WM is trying to corrupt it. > > > (even though saying log_10(oo)+1 = oo is not nonsense). > > Correct. > And moreover we know that [lgx] + 1 gives the number of digits of x.
Then, according to WM, ln(-1) + 1 = 1 + pi*i must be the number of digits in -1.
> > But may you believe it or not: Can you imagine to admit a > contradiction of set theory and mathematics, if it could be proven > that analysis shows the existence of infinitely many digits left to > the point in the limit of my sequence?
Since analysis, properly done, shows no such thing, your question is moot.
Analysis can show that the limit VALUE is oo in the extended reals, but does not presume to claim that there is a decimal, or any other place value based numeral, representing that limit value.
