```Date: Oct 3, 2017 6:41 PM
Author: Jan Burse
Subject: Re: Finally the discussion is over: S = Lim S is a bad definition.

One more example, comma, on the first page:http://eulerarchive.maa.org//docs/originals/E449.pdfj4n bur53 schrieb:> 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>>>>>>
```