|
|
Re: The Distinguishability argument of the Reals.
Posted:
Jan 6, 2013 4:12 PM
|
|
On Jan 6, 11:55 am, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> In article
> <1038fe29-f169-4511-bd13-c7ade7fd1...@pd8g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > lim_(d -> oo) f(n,d) = 0 for every n in N
> > > --
>
> > No
>
> If, as Ross defined it, f(n,d) = n/d for all d in N and all n in
> {0,1,2,...,d}, then for any n, lim_(d -> oo) f(n,d) = 0
>
> And no amount of denial by Ross will alter that fact.
> --
Wait, aren't you going to misquote Einstein? Because, you have quite
the practice of misquoting me. Now, I'm no Einstein, but, I generally
heartily agree with him, of the rather conscientious sort.
d/d = 1
lim_(n->d) n/d = 1
lim_(n->d, d->oo) n/d = 1
If, and it is, that's not how it's defined: again your challenge
contingent on failure, is: failed. You can leave out the factual
part that sees it true and claim it's not, but, is that not, denial?
Then, the denial is not on my part. I'd thank you to not misquote me
and claim that false.
The Nile is a river in Egypt: restriction of comprehension is
denial. In a naive set theory, ZF's universe of sets would contain
itself: Russell. Don't be denying the infinite, for denying the
finite.
The line, draw it.
Regards,
Ross Finlayson
|
|
