In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> 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. --