In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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.
Set theory proves no such thing, what set theory can prove is that any sequence of numerals in which the number of zeroes between the decimal point and the first non zero digit to its left increases without limit has in no NON_ZERO digits in that limit.
> Can a limit have these properties simultaneously?
The sequence a_n = 10^n and its limit, oo, certainly have the actual properties required, even if they do not have the ones that WM made up out of whole cloth. > > Don't worry. In matheology everything is possible
Only because WM created it and is its sole author. So much so that everyone else calls it "WMytheology".
: 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.
ZFC is a set theory in which nether Tarski nor anyone else has found any internal inconsistencies.
And the set of mathematicians for whom set theory is regarded as an essential part of modern mathematics is huge! --