Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Virgil
Posts:
8,833
Registered:
1/6/11


Re: Matheology � 261
Posted:
May 11, 2013 4:13 PM


In article <5c2d1ccc17634048a153592bc41530bb@k8g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fhaugsburg.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. 



