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.independent

Topic: Matheology � 295
Replies: 8   Last Post: Jun 28, 2013 4:43 PM

Advanced Search

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

Posts: 9,012
Registered: 1/6/11
Re: Matheology � 295
Posted: Jun 27, 2013 7:21 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In article <18d7cffc-ceb1-41de-a174-9f7e2dee64bc@googlegroups.com>,
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote:

> On Thursday, 27 June 2013 02:37:17 UTC+2, Zeit Geist wrote:
> > On Wednesday, June 26, 2013 8:12:09 AM UTC-7, muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de
> > wrote: > On Tuesday, 25 June 2013 02:21:13 UTC+2, Zeit Geist wrote: > > >

>
>

> > >> You think a sequence a, a, a, ... with a < 1 can, after formalization,
> > >> have limit > 100?

>
> >
> > > Probably not,
>
> >
> > (except in case ZFC would suffer from that result, therefore your
> > "probably")
> >
> > Let f:N\{0} U {N} --> R, such for all n e N\{0}, f(n) = 1/n, and f(N) = 1.

>
>
> Now, in the domain of the natural numbers as take as
> a sub-domain of the reals, lim f(x) as x --> oo = 0,
> but f(N) ~= 0.


While f(n) = 1/n, defines f(n) for each n which is a member of |N,
it does not define f(|N), since |N is a member of |N.

Just another example of WM's logical and mathematical incompetence.

> I see.

No, you don't. The number of things about mathematics that you make a
point of not seeing is far greater than the list of the few things you
do understand about actual mathematics, rather than the ersatz
matheology you propound.

>
> In real mathematics there is no f(oo). Therefore it cannot differ from
> lim{n-->oo}f(n).


Which is in direct opposition to what WM has prevously claimed.
>
> Further the argument is required in set theory too. The diagonal differs from
> the n first entries of the Cantor-list. The number of diagonals that are in
> the first n lines of the list is a_n = 0 for the first n lines of the list:
> 0, 0, 0, ... That sequence seems pretty well to imply that it holds for the
> limit too


That assumes a form of "continuity" at oo, which does not occur.

That infinitely many objects are not in any of an infinite increasing
sequence of finite sets does not imply that there cannot be infinitely
many members in the union of all those sets.

If each set in any infinite sequence of sets contains only one element
not in any previous sets of that sequence, then both the limit set and
the union set will contain infinitely many objects,
at least everywhere outside of WM's incestuous matheology.
--





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.