|
|
Re: Mathematics in brief
Posted:
Dec 10, 2012 12:31 PM
|
|
In <virgil-F01676.16024408122012@BIGNEWS.USENETMONSTER.COM>, on
12/08/2012
at 04:02 PM, Virgil <virgil@ligriv.com> said:
>In article
><47934f05-f8e1-4687-b590-af47fc4bee8c@8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
> WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>> On the contrary, ZFC is a deeply unlogical theory. It requires
>>the belief that uncountably many elements can be distinguished
>>whereas everybody knows that this is impossible even in ideal
>>mathematics.
That's one of the dumbest claims that I've ever read. Don't confuse
your delusions with what everybody believes.
>> Further in ZFC the sequence
>> 21., 2.1, 432.1, 43.21, 6543.21, 654.321, ...
>> has the limit < 1.
No; it has no limit.
>> In analysis the very same sequence has the (improper)imit oo.
>Right, for once!
No. For the sequence to have the limit oo, both lim sup and lin inf
would have to be oo, not just one of them.
--
Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel>
Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the
right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to
domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not
reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org
|
|
