|
|
Re: Matheology § 162
Posted:
Nov 26, 2012 1:38 AM
|
|
On 26 Nov., 00:56, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> In article
> <f6cde06f-8269-4768-a73e-9219bd020...@k6g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>,
>
> WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > Matheology 162
>
> > About limits of real sequences.
>
> > The limit of an infinite sequence (a_k) of real numbers a_k is
> > determined solely by the finite terms of the sequence. Otherwise, the
> > limit would not have to be *computed* but would have to be *created*.
> > Analysis is concerned with analyzing, i.e., with finding.
>
> > To give an example, we can state with absolute certainty that in the
> > real numbers the sequence
> > 0.1, 0.11, 0.111, ...
> > has the limit 0.111... = 1/9.
>
> Unless we are give some assurance that the pattern that most of us see
> is the intended one, such as by formula, no one can state "THE" limit,
> as no such limit exists.
Study real analysis. There are plenty of sequences which have one and
only one accumulation point. That is called *the* limit.
>
> > That is independent of the method which is used to analyze the
> > sequence.
>
> WRONG AGAIN!
>
> WM claims to be able to analyze a single sequence and, depending on
> which of two methods he uses, derive two quite different limits.
No, I use the analytical method and accept the analytical result. I do
not accept deviating results. And mathematicians are invited to join
me.
Regards, WM
|
|
