```Date: Nov 17, 2012 12:22 PM
Author: LudovicoVan
Subject: Re: Matheology § 152

"William Hughes" <wpihughes@gmail.com> wrote in message news:1ec0c2cc-f926-4fd4-a413-37ba8809ea80@y8g2000yqy.googlegroups.com...> On Nov 17, 9:59 am, "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote:>> "William Hughes" <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote in message>> news:28bff553-f679-4e23-8932-a1fb42f1b364@c17g2000yqe.googlegroups.com...>>>> > Note that *set* limits have some important properties.>>>> > Given a sequence of sets {B_1,B_2,B_3,...}>> > then the set limit always exists (it>> > may be the empty set).>>>> > If we have>>>> > A = set limit {B_1,B_2,B_3....}>>>> > Then>>>> >     A is a set>> >     A cannot contain an element that is not contained>> >       in any of the B's>>>> Williams going around, in circles:>>>> It was already mentioned that it is wrong to use that specific definition >> to>> solve the balls and vase problem.>>>> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_superior_and_limit_inferior#Special_case:_discrete_metric>>> The problem is the above applies to *any* definition of a *set* limit.But those definitions are a *specific* case of these:<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_superior_and_limit_inferior#Sequences_of_sets>I sometimes wonder which planet you come from.-LV
```