Virgil
Posts:
4,482
Registered:
1/6/11
|
|
Re: Mathematics in brief
Posted:
Dec 9, 2012 5:51 PM
|
|
In article
<593ce72f-d8c4-4101-8245-bbb7d04b4cb6@c16g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> 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
--
|
|
