Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Topic: Matheology � 261
Replies: 11   Last Post: May 16, 2013 8:42 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Virgil

Posts: 8,833
Registered: 1/6/11
Re: Matheology � 261
Posted: May 11, 2013 4:13 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In article
<5c2d1ccc-1763-4048-a153-592bc41530bb@k8g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> But I can state by pure reason: If we agree that irrelevant lines of
> the list are irrelevant, then I am right and set theory is wrong. And
> that is completely satifactory for me.


But what WM calls irrelevant is not irrelevant.

That different procedures may have the same limit does not mean that
their methods of arriving at a limit are irrelevant.

And in all three cases, the last line, whether any other lines are kept
or not always includes the union of all prior lines of each process as
a proper subset, so no prior lines are lost,merely incorporated intl the
last line, and always the limit WM claims is merely the union of all
lines that are ever used in each process.

That different sequences can have the same limit should not be news to
anyone who really understands mathematics, but appears to shock WM.
--





Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.