Virgil
Posts:
6,993
Registered:
1/6/11


Re: WMytheology � 300
Posted:
Jul 15, 2013 3:59 PM


In article <624aa4306ba14033ae9ba053a549f616@googlegroups.com>, mueckenh@rz.fhaugsburg.de wrote:
> On Sunday, July 14, 2013 12:00:25 AM UTC7, muec...@rz.fhaugsburg.de > wrote: > > >> All naturals are in every column of the list > > 1 > > 21 > > 321 > > ... > > > >> So all naturals are in the list. > > > >> Everything that is in the list is in one line of the list. > > > Everything that is in the list is also in every column of the list, so > thatwhen WM is claiming that everything that is in one line (row) he is > also claiming every column is also in some line (row). > > Of course. Everything that is in one column is also in one row.
If any column is in one row, which row?
Outside of WM's wild weird world of WMytheology, every row has a largest member, and every column contains the successor to that largest member for each and every row, so cannot be contained in any row.
> > But concluding let us remember the origin of this discussion: > > Let F(n) = {1, 2, 3, ..., n} be the nth finite initial segment of the set of > natural numbers. Then the sequence (a_n) defined by a_n = min(10^100, > Card(N \ F(n))) = 10^100 has limit 0 in matheology
Only in WM's WMytheology.
In standard mathematics, for all n in N, a_n = min(10^100, Card(N \ F(n))) = 10^100
And in standard mathematics, outside of WM's wild weird world of WMytheology, every constant sequence, which WM's (a_n) above is, has its constant value as its limit.
So "the origin of this discussion" is just another of WM's many lies. 

