|
|
Re: Matheology § 162
Posted:
Nov 27, 2012 3:12 PM
|
|
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.
Regards, WM
|
|
