On 28 Nov., 19:13, Carsten Schultz <schu...@zedat.fu-berlin.de> wrote: > 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 are not very bright, are you? Of course I correct only your obvious errors like the recent one. > > > This seems to suggest that set theory is not suitable (or willing in > > this special case) to calculate the limit, or analysis is wrong. > > Or what you write is just idiotic.
You are really not very bright, are you really?
Set theory calculates that the limit has no digits left to the point. Analysis calculates that the limit has digits left to the point. If you cannot see a contradiction, then, good heavens, at least stop shouting that you can't see it. There are man fools in mad houses who also cannot see the contradiction and may estimate my proof as idiotic.