> On Wednesday, 4 June 2014 13:53:30 UTC+2, Ben Bacarisse wrote: <snip> >> There >> is a "for all" symbol, bit no "for every" symbol. You repeatedly say >> that this is a mistake which leads to a contradiction, but that >> contradiction is never shown (let alone proved). > > It is shown.
Yes, but only, to your satisfaction. That seems to a few hand-waving phrases and an anecdote about a cartoon duck. Will a real argument ever be forthcoming?
> Even you have recognized it! The set limit is no what the > sequence converges to.
Oh, I thought that was what you thought. If the set limit is no "what the set converges to" why do you use it as measure of what you call the "final set"?
> The story of McDuck is so silly that it is > accepted by fools only. > > Why do you try to defend the mistake which it is based upon?
I don't. I reject the interpretation you put on what the limit set means. Clear analysis of the story shows that the set limit is not connected to property you say it is. Only by imagining some mysterious (and absurd) "final set" can you make this incorrect interpretation work. In mathematics, the limit sets in question are never reached.