> On Saturday, August 16, 2014 3:49:10 PM UTC-4, Ben Bacarisse wrote: >> >> You'd need to define the WMglish term "the set at omega". I explained >> how set sequence limits can be defined in the little paper I wrote and >> there is no "set at omega" involved. > > Do you mind sharing a link to the paper mentioned above?
Suggestions welcomes since I suppose Professor Mueckenheim may well point to it again, so that his next class of students can marvel at the stupidity of set theorists. (Not that I am one.)
I would write something rather different now because I think I get what's going on a bit better. In particular, I'd stress that fact that their esteemed professor can have no objection to any of the limits used to define the set limit.