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 � 300
Replies: 27   Last Post: Jul 9, 2013 2:50 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 � 300
Posted: Jul 7, 2013 4:16 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In article <8de5731f-8a55-4e64-ab91-32e35be974f7@googlegroups.com>,
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote:

> On Sunday, 7 July 2013 13:34:47 UTC+2, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> > "Michael Klemm" <m_f_klemm@t-online.de> wrote in message
> > news:krb4m5$ftr$1@solani.org... > WM wrote: > >> ... except in matheology
> > where the sequence 1/Card(|N\FIS(n)) is 0 for >> every n but has limit oo.

> > > > No. lim_{n-->oo} 1/Card(|N\FIS(n)) = lim_{n-->oo} 1/oo = lim_{n-->oo} 0
> > > = 0. Pardon the basic question, but I do not understand your result.
> > Isn't: lim_{n->oo} 1/Card(N\Fison(n)) = = 1/Card(N\(lim_{n->oo} Fison(n)))
> > = = 1/Card(N\N)= = 1/Card({}) = = 1/0 = oo What am I doing wrong? Julio

>
> You use set theory where analysis is required.


When one has the set expression |N\Fison(n), in which both "|N" and
"FIS(n)" represent sets and "\" represents a set operation, only a fool
like WM will object to the use of set theory in evaluating what cannot
be evaluated without it.
--





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.