Date: Oct 3, 2017 6:30 PM Author: Jan Burse Subject: Re: Finally the discussion is over: S = Lim S is a bad definition. BTW: It took me 2 minutes to find a sequence notation

in the works of Euler, maybe further examples can

be found. I used this website:

In 1910 and 1913, Swedish Mathematician Gustav

Eneström completed a comprehensive survey of

Euler's works. He counted and enumerated 866

distinct works, including books, journal articles,

and some letters he deemed to be especially important.

Each of these was assigned a number, from E1 to

E866, which is now referred to as the "Eneström

number." Most historical scholars today use

Eneström numbers to identify Euler's

writings quickly."

http://eulerarchive.maa.org/index/enestrom.html

The sequence notation I found is not perfect,

since later in his paper he stops with his

mortality considerations at age=100.

But I guess everybody gets the idea...?!

j4n bur53 schrieb:

> 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

> http://eulerarchive.maa.org//docs/originals/E334.pdf

>

> 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 burs...@gmail.com:

>> 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.

>>

>> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBOs-Xf_UIg

>>

>> 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.

>>

>> gilstrang@gmail.com (MIT)

>> huizenga@psu.edu (HARVARD)

>> andersk@mit.edu (MIT)

>> david.ullrich@math.okstate.edu (David Ullrich)

>> djoyce@clarku.edu

>> markcc@gmail.com

>>

>