Virgil
Posts:
4,482
Registered:
1/6/11
|
|
Re: Matheology � 162
Posted:
Nov 27, 2012 5:53 PM
|
|
In article
<70b6ccb0-3ae5-4276-96ae-8884b7b42cc8@l7g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 27 Nov., 19:52, Carsten Schultz <schu...@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote:
> > Surely set theory must be to blame for this!
>
> We have infinitely many digits left to the point in the limit when
> calculated by analysis.
The number of digits between the radix point and the first non-zero
digit to its left increases without limit, and thus has infinity as its
limit, and this works the same however one calculates it,
>
> We have no digits left to the point in the limit when calculated by
> set theory.
WM may not, but we do, but their are in the limit infinitely many of
them being zero before any other kind can occur.
>
> This seems to suggest that set theory is not suitable (or willing in
> this special case) to calculate the limit, or analysis is wrong.
Only to those like WM who live their lives in Wolkenmuekenheim rather
than in any real world
> I
> would stick with analysis. Of course there is no contradiction because
> we know in set theory
> Ther¹s no con-
> tra-dic-tion!
> Ther¹s no con-
> tra-dic-tion!
> Ther¹s no con-
> tra-dic-tion!
> (to be shouted to the tune of Orwell's sheep).
What goes on in WM's Wolkenmuekenheim may be up to him, but what is
outside his Wolkenmuekenheim WM cannot control.
--
|
|
