On 30 Nov., 00:29, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > > > In analysis there is such an > > > >improper limit, > > > > And the reason that it's called an "improper limit" is because limits > > > are properly numbers, and it's not a number. > > > Not in anaysis. Therefore I said improper limit. > > Not in what? Note that since you concede that it is Not A Number in > "analysis" it need not have any digits in it
Analysis proves that the limit is larger than 1. Set theory proves that the limit has no digits left of the decimal point. Can a limit have these properties simultaneously?
Don't worry. In matheology everything is possible: Numbers the value of which cannot be determined, numbers that cannot be identified but well-ordered, volumes which can be double while they remain exactly what they were. Set theory is a fairy tale, said Tarski.
Please repeat 10 times: There's no con-tra-dic-tion!