In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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?
A good deal brighter than WM.
> Of course I correct only your > obvious errors like the recent one.
WM cannot even correct his own errors, much less anyone else's. > > > > > 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?
He is bright enough to point out some of your more blatant errors! > > Set theory calculates that the limit has no digits left to the point.
Set theory says no such thing! What set theory says is that after every digit potion has been filled with a 0, which would be the limit case as described by WM himself, there are no digit positions not yet filled with 0's.
> Analysis calculates that the limit has digits left to the point.
Analysis says no such thing. Analysis does not demand that any infinite limit, as in this case, be representable by a decimal numeral at all.
It is only ignorant asses like WM who would claim that an unbounded sequence will have a decimal numeral as its limit value.
> If > you cannot see a contradiction
We see a huge contradicton between the reality and what WM claims is the reality.