On 27.11.12 21:25, WM 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. > > We have no digits left to the point in the limit when calculated by > set theory. >
So this time you do not claim that I am wrong, you just repeat your nonsense.
> This seems to suggest that set theory is not suitable (or willing in > this special case) to calculate the limit, or analysis is wrong.