Date: Nov 17, 2012 1:09 PM
Author: Uirgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 152

In article <k88h5n$eeo$1@dont-email.me>,
"LudovicoVan" <julio@diegidio.name> wrote:

> "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_cas
> >> e:_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_s
> ets>
>
> I sometimes wonder which planet you come from.


Irrelevant Ad Hom noted!

Actually, William HUghes' "definition" is quite carefully non-specific,
and while it certainly includes both a lim_sups and a lim_infs, is in no
way limiter to only those.

So that, as usual, LV has things inverted.