Date: Nov 17, 2012 10:27 PM
Author: Uirgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 152
In article <k88p6q$sd$1@dont-email.me>,

"LudovicoVan" <julio@diegidio.name> wrote:

> "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_o

> >> f_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 limited to only those.

> >

> > So that, as usual, LV has things inverted.

>

> The one who has got something inverted here is you.

Another in the long line of LV's irrelevant ad homs noted!

>

> You are again invited to stop the spam and disturbance

>

> -LV

>

I would, but I have no power to shut off either WM or LV.