```Date: Nov 19, 2012 4:49 PM
Author: Vurgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 152

In article <4304750f-ea45-46e7-80bc-1afe4c1310fc@o30g2000vbu.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:> 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 Does WW now claim that     1/((((((10^0)/10)+10^1)/10)+10^2)/10)+ somehow produces the sequence    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    ...?  And I certainly DO see ways how WM's nonsense can be avoided. A simple PLONK would do it, but I find more amusement in seeing WMs struggles to maintain what little sanity he has left and still support the insupportable.
```