On 9 Dez., 00:02, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > In ZFC the sequence > > 21., 2.1, 432.1, 43.21, 6543.21, 654.321, ... > > has the limit < 1. > > That is a very curious claim by WM, > but totally unsubstantiated by WM, > and thus, at best, of dubious validity.
This claim is not by me but by Fraenkel and every knowledgeable matheologian. > > Any such proof, if it did exist, would quickly have become notorious > among those, like WM, who dislike ZFC. > So the absence of any evidence of proofs of such a theorem I find to be > entirely convincing evidence of their non-existence.
That's just like you. > > > In analysis the very same sequence has the > > (improper)imit oo. > > Right, for once! > > > If analysis is based upon ZFC then we have a contradiction. > > Not until WM's claim of what occurs in ZFC can be validated, if ever.