On Sunday, July 7, 2013 3:32:50 PM UTC-7, Julio Di Egidio wrote:
> > No, that is not what I have said. Take a few good breaths before you try > > again reading, but be aware that understanding my statement may blow your > > mind. A man warned is half saved... >
This is what you said
""Zeit Geist" <tucso...@me.com> wrote in message news:firstname.lastname@example.org... > On Sunday, July 7, 2013 2:59:23 AM UTC-7, muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote: > >> The old story of the marbles in the urn. In the limit the urn is empty >> but the limit of number of marbles is infinite. If limits have to be >> calculated by the finite terms, like in mathematics,then this is a >> contradiction. > > You mean the Urn where every marble is eventually removed, > and at Noon the Urn is empty?
That's indeed a patent logical invalidity, already enough to warrant a revision of standard set theory.
And you response is incorrect.
And "That conclusion is patently illogical: at that very time t_n, 2 more marbles get in.
Which is treating the infinite just as the finite.