|
|
Re: Mathematics in brief
Posted:
Dec 9, 2012 3:41 AM
|
|
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.
Look here:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ross%E2%80%93Littlewood_paradox
Regards, WM
|
|
