In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> 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.