In article <0ee396a8-91e7-4221-82e6-bed81af08331@o30g2000vbu.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 23 Nov., 22:37, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > > 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. > > If the limit value > Limit[n-->oo] SUM[k=0 to n] a_k*10^k = oo > is accepted in the extended reals, then it is simply ridiculous to > claim that the abbreviation > ..., a_k, ..., a_3, a_2, a_1, a_0 > is not in the abbreviations of the extended reals.
The only such "abbreviations" in standard use for "extended reals are oo for the one point compactification or +oo and -oo for the two point compactification. Anything else exists only in Wolkenmuekenheim.
> > But William had agreed: "On the contrary, the fact that the analytic > *limit* cannot be described in terms of digits is the point." > > And he stated proudly: > > Analysis: > limit in real numbers: unbounded > (oo in extended reals) > limit of set of 1's: not estimated > > Set Theory > limit in real numbers: not estimated > limit of set of 1's: {} > > Therefore he would have to confess now that there is a contradiction > between set theory and analysis.
To say that different definitions of "limit" can give different results only confuses WM, not anyone else.
But confusion is the norm in WMytheology.
> On the other hand we know the first commandment of
WMytheology > > There's no con- > tra-dic-tion! > There's no con- > tra-dic-tion! > There's no con- > tra-dic-tion! > ... > > Regards, WM --
