On 30 Jan., 10:27, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > In article > <b8ae4596-d84a-4752-bb5a-f5f51a596...@l9g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>, > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > On 30 Jan., 02:00, david petry <david_lawrence_pe...@yahoo.com> wrote: > > > Doron Zeilberger wrote the following in an opinion piece on his website: > > > > "Read Wolfgang Mueckenheim's fascinating book ! I especially like the > > > bottom of page 112 and the top of page 113, that prove, once and for all, > > > that (at least) the actual infinity is pure nonsense." > > > >http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/Opinion68.html > > > > I'd be interested in seeing an English translation of the bottom of page > > > 112 and the top of page 113. > > > It is essentially this: > >http://planetmath.org/?op=getobj&from=objects&id=12607 > > Which only shows that while figures do not lie, liars often figure. > > Such a silly sequence when give two or more such totally different > interpretations
A sequence of numbers in mathematics needs no interpretation at all.
> can be made to have as many limits s interpretations.
In mathematics, the given sequence has one and only one (improper) limit. Everything that interprets something else, stand outside of mathematics. > > It also carefully ignores that many, if not most, sequences do not have > any limit at all, and the ones claimed are, at best dubious.
Limits in mathematics have been defined by Cauchy and other great mathematicians. And if a limit is +0, then the reciprocals are said to have the improper limit oo. There is no uncertainty about that fact. > > That same swindle has been tried here before and been debunked.
by matheologians, but, not surprising, with very different arguments. Just recently we saw the argument that finite cardinals and naturals should behave very differently. Some time ago William Hughes had another argument that I have to look up. I am curious to see further arguments.