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 � 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: 9,012
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 <369738a5-46db-454b-b5ea-0dd498fc6654@googlegroups.com>,
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de 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]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.