In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> 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.
Then why does WM insist on imposing several different interpretations on the sequence he presented? > > > 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.
Then Wm stands outside mathematics, as he doe exactly that with his 'sequence", giving it multiple interpretations. > > > > 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.
But WM is not using any of Cauchy's definitions of limits with his sequence, which, according to any Cauchy definition does not converge at all. There is no uncertainty about that fact. > > > > That same swindle has been tried here before and been debunked. > > by matheologians
Who are, by every standard but WM's, mathematicians and by whose own standards WM is himself no more than a wmytheologist. --