Date: Nov 17, 2012 2:39 PM
Author: LudovicoVan
Subject: Re: Matheology § 152

"Uirgil" <uirgil@uirgil.ur> wrote in message 
news:uirgil-B4A0C7.11095217112012@BIGNEWS.USENETMONSTER.COM...
> 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.


The one who has got something inverted here is you.

You are again invited to stop the spam and disturbance and kindly get lost.

-LV