In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 26 Nov., 08:37, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > But the non-analytical limit that exists for the sequence of sets of > > digit positions also exists and is quite different from what WM's > > delusions claim. > > Anyhow, set theory yields results for limits of analytical sequences > that are in contradiction with the results of analysis.
Unless such an "analytical sequence" is reformulated as a sequence of sets, there cannot be any such other limit.
And if it is so reformulated, then the original analytical analysis is longer relevant.
And certainly WM's phoney analyses have been irrelevant from the very beginning. --