```Date: Nov 18, 2012 7:14 PM
Author: Vurgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 152

In article <e5d33c50-6d57-48c9-a54f-c291589115be@o8g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:> On 18 Nov., 18:45, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:> > On Nov 18, 7:13 am, WM <mueck...@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?> >> > Niether.> >> > The fact  that in Wolkenmuekenheim the two limits> > are assumed to be the same does> > not mean that you are using the same limit both times.> > Is it correct in mathematics to claim:> 1/((((((10^0)/10)+10^1)/10)+10^2)/10)+ = 0 ?> And is it also correcr to claim> 1/((((((10^0)/10)+10^1)/10)+10^2)/10)+ > 1 ?> Is it is therefore correct to claim 0 > 1?> > Or can you give some guidelines for beginners, when and why which of> the limits has to be applied?> I see no reason to suppose that the expression is well enough defined to have anything like a unique limit.If it is  expressible as the limit of a sequence at all, then show us the terms of such a sequence.
```