Virgil
Posts:
4,660
Registered:
1/6/11
|
|
Re: Matheology � 200
Posted:
Jan 28, 2013 2:32 PM
|
|
In article
<a687f86f-a742-4956-ad8a-ea19641659d1@w3g2000yqj.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 27 Jan., 23:25, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > In article
>
> > > The cardinality of the indexes of this limit in
> > > analysis is aleph_0.
> >
> > > The sequence of cardinalities is 2, 1, 3, 2, 4, 3, ... The limit of
> > > this sequence is aleph_0 too.
> >
> > > > The limit you calculate is not a limit set, nor the
> > > > cardinality of a limit set.
> >
> > > Analysis shows that the cardinality of the digits is 1 + logn. This
> > > does not break down for n = oo.
> >
> > Since we are talking about a sequence of sets, not a sequence of
> > numbers. "1+log(n)" is irrelevant.
>
> I am talking about a sequence of sets, namely the indexed digits of
> numbers, and their cardinality is 1 + log(n).
>
The indexed digits of numbers are not sets, unless you are using
something like the von Neumann naturals in which naturals are themselves
sets.
But you are, as usual, talking nonsense.
--
|
|
