In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 26 Nov., 09:47, YBM <ybm...@nooos.fr.invalid> wrote: > > > > > > Study real analysis. There are plenty of sequences which have one and > > > only one accumulation point. That is called *the* limit. > > > > What is properly amazing, and shamefull, is that WM is actually teaching > > Obviously you are lacking solid information concerning set theory and > Cantor's work - as every attentive reader will remember. That is not a > good basis for issuing judgements. > > > math in an academic german institution while confusing having several > > accumulation points for a sequence (for a given topology) and having > > different limits for different topologies.- > > There are not different topologies involved when calculating sets of > digits of analytical limits. Nevertheless even you seem to be capable > of recognizing that set theory is not suitable for calculating limits > of analysis.
While "different topologies" may be overstating the case, differing situations is not.
WM compares a sequence of supposedly real numbers and a sequence of sets of digit positions, and says that because the limits of such different sequences can be different that mathematics has failed.
Real athematicians, on the other hand, regard WM's conclusions as evidence that WM has failed!