Date: Oct 4, 2017 2:48 PM Author: Markus Klyver Subject: Re: "Every Cauchy sequence of real numbers converges to a limit." BUT<br> orangutan Klyver implies that Q is not part of the real numbers. Tsk, tsk. Den onsdag 4 oktober 2017 kl. 16:32:41 UTC+2 skrev Zelos Malum:

> Den onsdag 4 oktober 2017 kl. 12:23:41 UTC+2 skrev John Gabriel:

> > On Wednesday, 4 October 2017 06:05:27 UTC-4, Zelos Malum wrote:

> > > Gabriel you dipshit, how about you tell me this. let F_n mark the n'th number in the fibbonacci sequence, then we can form a sequence <F_{n+1}/F_n>, which is cauchy in Q, now as we are ONLY dealing with Q, and nor R, which means we can ONLY PICK ELEMENTS FROM Q AND NOTHING ELSE!, tell me what rational number that cauchy sequence converges too.

> >

> > Reread the OP you moron! No one is claiming that it will converge in Q. The claim is that it will converge to some LIMIT whether it be in Q or not.

> >

> > > If your claim that every cauchy sequence converges, you must be able to find it in Q.

> >

> > FALSE. You dipshit parroting little twerp.

> >

> > By your very own dislogic, S = {0.9; 0.99; 0.999; ...} must converge to something in S. Where is 1 in S you pathetic numbskull?

> >

> > No, but little Zelos heard teacher say it! Didn't you moron? And good little fat boy believes everything teacher tells him, yes?

> >

> > Stupid, stupid, very stupid boy!

>

> Your statement was "Every cauchy sequence converges", which, when talking about Q, means it must be in Q, talking about it in a complete space, is trivial because....that is the definition of being complete. You have changed your position here from the original "Every cauchy sequence converges" to, as the title says "EVery cauchy sequence of real numbers converges", which is fairly dishonest considering people pointed out that the former doesn't work in, as example provided, Q.

>

> >By your very own dislogic, S = {0.9; 0.99; 0.999; ...} must converge to something in S. Where is 1 in S you pathetic numbskull?

>

> Is S a space or is it a sequence? It cannot be both here. The fact you think that it is equivalent shows you have no clue what you are talking about.

>

> If you allow S to be a space however, where did I say it had to be in S? S would clearly NOT be complete.

How can a set converge? Or if S is a sequence, how can a sequence converge to "something in S"? Is S a space or a sequence. Your statement doesn't make sense either way.

The sequence 0.9, 0.99, 0.999, ... DOES converge in ?, and its limit is 1.

Den onsdag 4 oktober 2017 kl. 19:36:56 UTC+2 skrev John Gabriel:

> On Wednesday, 4 October 2017 10:32:41 UTC-4, Zelos Malum wrote:

> > Den onsdag 4 oktober 2017 kl. 12:23:41 UTC+2 skrev John Gabriel:

> > > On Wednesday, 4 October 2017 06:05:27 UTC-4, Zelos Malum wrote:

> > > > Gabriel you dipshit, how about you tell me this. let F_n mark the n'th number in the fibbonacci sequence, then we can form a sequence <F_{n+1}/F_n>, which is cauchy in Q, now as we are ONLY dealing with Q, and nor R, which means we can ONLY PICK ELEMENTS FROM Q AND NOTHING ELSE!, tell me what rational number that cauchy sequence converges too.

> > >

> > > Reread the OP you moron! No one is claiming that it will converge in Q. The claim is that it will converge to some LIMIT whether it be in Q or not.

> > >

> > > > If your claim that every cauchy sequence converges, you must be able to find it in Q.

> > >

> > > FALSE. You dipshit parroting little twerp.

> > >

> > > By your very own dislogic, S = {0.9; 0.99; 0.999; ...} must converge to something in S. Where is 1 in S you pathetic numbskull?

> > >

> > > No, but little Zelos heard teacher say it! Didn't you moron? And good little fat boy believes everything teacher tells him, yes?

> > >

> > > Stupid, stupid, very stupid boy!

> >

> > Your statement was "Every cauchy sequence converges", which, when talking about Q, means it must be in Q,

>

> Wrong. That is just your incorrect assertion. You are WRONG ALL the time and WRONG about everything.

>

> > talking about it in a complete space, is trivial because....that is the definition of being complete. You have changed your position here from the original "Every cauchy sequence converges" to, as the title says "EVery cauchy sequence of real numbers converges", which is fairly dishonest considering people pointed out that the former doesn't work in, as example provided, Q.

> >

> > >By your very own dislogic, S = {0.9; 0.99; 0.999; ...} must converge to something in S. Where is 1 in S you pathetic numbskull?

> >

> > Is S a space or is it a sequence?

>

> Bwaaa haaaa haaaa. You stupid dick. It is clear that S is a sequence.

>

> Do spaces ever converge you fucking idiot?!!!!

No, if we talk about ?, then of course all limits must be in ? as well.