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 � 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 ]

Posts: 8,833
Registered: 1/6/11
Re: Matheology � 300
Posted: Jul 8, 2013 4:05 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In article <>, wrote:

> On Sunday, 7 July 2013 22:11:41 UTC+2, Virgil wrote:

> > You are assuming, wrongly, that one must have for any functions f and g
> > that f(lim_{n->oo} g(n) ) = lim_{n->oo} f(g(n))

> But he is assuming correctly that limit(card(urn)) = oo is contradictory to
> an empty urn, i.e., card(limit(urn)) = 0.

No one denies that limit(card(urn)) =/= card(limit(urn)).

WM's false assumption is that the proper result should be oo
rather than 0

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.