In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> 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?
He doesn't, but you do! You claim , despite the obvious evidence that many others disagree with you, that your view is the only one possible.
> 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).
But in standard analysis "infinity" is not real number, so WM must be off in some strange non-standard place like Wolkenmuekenheim. .
> 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.
In REAL mathematics, there are all sorts of 'numbers' which rarely if ever are given any digital expressions whatsoever.
Including, in the extended reals that WM insisted upon above, oo and possibly -oo as well. > > 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 cardinality of that set of digits is 10 or less. The cardinality of the set of place values for those digits may be different, but the cardinality of the set of possible decimal digits is 10, even in WMytheology, so WM's set has no more than 10 members.. --