```Date: Nov 18, 2012 7:10 PM
Author: Vurgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 152

In article <b8d67bf3-ec24-4451-8573-aa0a527997e6@y6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:> On 17 Nov., 23:08, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:> > On Nov 17, 5:23 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:> >> > > On 17 Nov., 21:21, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:> >> > > > (nor is there a problem that WM two limits are different)-> >> > > Interesting. A nice claim.> > > The limit of a sequence may depend on the method which is used to> > > calculate it?> >> > Nope, but it does depend on which limit is used.> > The Cauchy-limit or the Cantor-limit?> 1/((((((10^0)/10)+10^1)/10)+10^2)/10)+ = 0 (Cauchy)> 1/((((((10^0)/10)+10^1)/10)+10^2)/10)+ > 1 (Cantor) Theses are not, as claimed by WM inin another post, anything like continued fractions, so it is not clear what the finite terms are supposed to be.And without knowing that, no limit can possibly be determined.Now if is just that "1/((((((10^0)/10)+10^1)/10)+10^2)/10)+" is sufficiently ambiguous that Cauchy and Cantor disagree on what the finite sequences are which leads to this expression, I am not at all surprized.
```