On 27 Nov., 20:14, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > > Anyone who needs "(x --> oo) ==> (logx --> oo)" to compute the > > > analytical limit of WM's sequence of reals > > > Again you misunderstand. This relation is not needed to compute the > > analytical limit of reals but to compute the set of indexed digits > > left to the decimal point, or, as you call it, the limit of the > > sequence of sets of positions left of the radix point. > > Curious that no one but WM needs it for that purpose.
That is easy to explain. You are brain-washed such that you have forgotten to do mathematics without completed infinity. Nevertheless, it is not forbidden, I assume, to use analysis?
> > > According to set theory the limit set is empty. This is a > > contradiction of analysis and set theory.
> Outside of Wolkenmuekenheim every digit position to the left of the > radix point eventually becomes occupied with a zero digit which will > thereafter remain unchanged.
Sorry, not in set theory. Set theory proves that there is no digit whatever in the limit left to the point.
> It is amazing how careful WM is to close his eyes and mind to anything > he does not wish to understand.
Please try to opne your eyes to thing that you wish to understand.