```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.
```