Date: Nov 19, 2012 1:50 AM
Author: mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
Subject: Re: Matheology § 152
On 19 Nov., 01:10, Vurgil <Vur...@arg.erg> wrote:

> In article

> <b8d67bf3-ec24-4451-8573-aa0a52799...@y6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,

>

>

>

>

>

> 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?

> > 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.

It is clear to every sufficiently intelligent reader.

>

> 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.-

Thank you for implicitly confessing that you do not see a way how the

set theoretical limit { } of the indices of the integer-digits in

> > 0_2 1_1 .

> > 0_2 . 1_1

> > 0_4 1_3 0_2 . 1_1

> > 0_4 1_3 . 0_2 1_1

> > 0_6 1_5 0_4 1_3 . 0_2 1_1

> > 0_6 1_5 0_4 . 1_3 0_2 1_1

> > 0_8 1_7 0_6 1_5 0_4 . 1_3 0_2 1_1

> > 0_8 1_7 0_6 1_5 . 0_4 1_3 0_2 1_1

> > ...

can be avoided or how the application of set theory in calculating the

limit can be interpreted as "another" limit.

Regards, WM