In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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.
That only makes you a very unknowledgeable matheologian, unable to substantiate that claim yourself, whose statement you carefully clipped, to cover your ass. > > > > 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 --