The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

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

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

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

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 ]

Posts: 18,076
Registered: 1/29/05
Re: Matheology § 261
Posted: May 12, 2013 6:18 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 11 Mai, 22:13, Virgil <> wrote:
> In article
> <>,
>  WM <> 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.

Not in matheology including far distance actions. But in mathematics
and for every finite n the last line of


is independent of the presence or absence of the preceding lines.

Regards, WM

> 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]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.