Virgil
Posts:
4,482
Registered:
1/6/11
|
|
Re: Matheology � 162
Posted:
Nov 26, 2012 2:30 AM
|
|
In article
<6fb2031a-66f3-4125-be85-cbb98ede8c25@r4g2000vbi.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 25 Nov., 23:49, Nam Nguyen <namducngu...@shaw.ca> wrote:
> > On 25/11/2012 3:11 PM, Roland Franzius wrote:
> >
> > > Am 25.11.2012 22:37, schrieb WM:
> > >> If any of these aspects is computed by another than the analytical
> > >> method and turns out as deviating from the analytical result, then the
> > >> other method is not suitable for analytical purposes.
> >
> > > The same statement seems to be true for the problem of different ways of
> > > reasoning with different results.
> >
> > > Most people do not accept wrong methods with wrong results.
> > > Wrong methods leading to correct results are widely used everywhere
> > > except in mathematics.
> >
> > There are cases of wrong methods leading to a result that can't be
> > determined to be correct or incorrect, in mathematics.
> >
> In analysis there are cases that can be determined to be correct. The
> following sequence 01.
> 0.1
> 010.1
> 01.01
> 0101.01
> 010.101
> 01010.101
> 0101.0101
> ...
> has the (improper) limit oo.
By what rule of limiting do you claim such a limit?
Note that none of the terms, at least as indicated above, are in proper
form for real numbers, so that their meanings are, at best, uncertain,
so that no interpretation as real numbers is necessarily valid.
>
> This implies the limit of the number of digits left to the decimal
> point is the number of digits left of the decimal point of the limit
Since your claimed limit, oo, does not have any digits, on either side
of its non-existent decimal point, your claimed implication is seen to
be trivially false.
Thus any further claims, at least those being based on that falsehood,
are themselves unreliable.
--
|
|
