Date: Oct 3, 2017 6:22 PM
Author: Jan Burse
Subject: Re: Finally the discussion is over: S = Lim S is a bad definition.

Or if you use the new mongo lingo of bird brain
John Gabriel, you can also call it "not determinable".
doesn't matter how you call it, a sequence is not
the same as a value, but Euler clearly didn't use

sequence notation in his public tailored publication,
he used the infinite sum notation, thats John Gabriels
error, that he thinks the following is not a
limit notation, but a sequence notation:

a1 + a2 + a3 + ...

Here you find a nice publication by Euler, where
he indeed mentions a sequence, and he uses this notation:

(1), (2), (3), ...
E334 -- Recherches generales sur la mortalite et
la multiplication du genre humain

So the difference is that he uses a comma in the
above, and not a summation sign. It is not the case
that mathematicians only wrote up sequences after
Euler, sequence notation existed already during times

of Euler. And clearly there is no Euler blunder S=Lim S,
this is complete bird bran John Gabriel nonsense,
to denote a sequence, Euler would have used the comma.
BTW in the same paper E334, you later find

also sum instead of comma, so Euler was even able
to use sequence and series side by side.

Am Dienstag, 3. Oktober 2017 23:51:43 UTC+2 schrieb
> limit, since {an} or (an) wants to
> indicate a multiplicity of values, but

John Gabriel schrieb:
> Finally the discussion is over: S = Lim S is a bad definition.
> Comments are unwelcome and will be ignored.
> Posted on this newsgroup in the interests of public education and to eradicate ignorance and stupidity from mainstream mythmatics.
> (MIT)
> (MIT)
> (David Ullrich)