On 27 Jan., 14:04, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> You are taking the limit of > > 1+decadic logarithm of L > > You are not taking the limit of sets > but the limit of cardinalites of sets.
Wrong. Why do you try to lie so obviously? I take the limit of the set of indexes of the digits left to the decimal point. I only prove by 1 + logn that in anlysis this limit is not empty.
The limit of ((((((10^0)/10)+10^1)/10)+10^2)/10)+... is a real number, in fact infinity (in my example consisting of the ordered set of numbers left in the urn). In analysis a number larger than 10 is unavoidably connected with a set of digits that is larger than 1. You can try to escape from this fact but never will succeed. i.e., you will never convince a mathematician of the contrary.
The digits of TRUNC((((((10^0)/10)+10^1)/10)+10^2)/10)+... belong to a set. The cardinality of that set is aleph_0. The corresponding result of set theory is empty set with cardinality 0.