Date: Nov 17, 2012 1:05 PM
Author: Uirgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 152

In article 
<1ec0c2cc-f926-4fd4-a413-37ba8809ea80@y8g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,
William Hughes <wpihughes@gmail.com> wrote:

> 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#Specia...>
> >

>
>
> The problem is the above applies to *any* definition of a *set* limit.


And, at least as far as I know, EVERY such definition.