|
|
Re: Matheology § 200
Posted:
Jan 27, 2013 5:08 PM
|
|
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.
Regards, WM
|
|
