Virgil
Posts:
4,483
Registered:
1/6/11
|
|
Re: Matheology � 162
Posted:
Nov 27, 2012 2:41 AM
|
|
In article
<aaa8416f-f069-4525-9261-406792ffb435@u9g2000vbm.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 26 Nov., 20:55, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
>
> > > 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.
>
> You have not yet understood. I compare the analytical limit of a
> sequence of digits positions and the set theoretic limit of the same
> sequence of digit positions.
I understand that you compare apples to oranges and are unhappy to find
they are different.
>
> The analytical limit is obtained via (x --> oo) ==> (logx --> oo) from
> the limit of the sequence of real numbers, but does that invalidate
> the analytical mathod?
Anyone who needs "(x --> oo) ==> (logx --> oo)" to compute the
analytical limit of WM's sequence of reals is, as WM so often shows
himself to be, mathematically incompetent.
But however that limit is reached, it has nothing to do with the limit
of the sequence of sets of positions left of the radix point having
non-zero values, which limit is the empty set.
--
|
|
