Date: Jan 26, 2013 5:37 PM
Author: mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
Subject: Re: Matheology § 200

On 26 Jan., 23:32, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:

> > Aside: Of course this nonsense shows already that set theory is such.
> > A limit is  the continuation of the finite into the infinite. But that
> > is not used in my proof.

>
> I know of no such definition of any limit process.


That does not prove anything.
>

>
> > You are not well informed. Read my proof again (and again, if
> > necessary, until you will have understood, if possible): In analysis
> > you calculate the limit. This limit contains numbers or (in the
> > reduced case of my proof) bits 0 and 1. The number of theses bits is
> > the cardinality of the limit.

>
> Then, according to WM,  lim_(n -> oo) 1/n must have infinitely many bits.


Of course, for instance if written as the seqeunce that here is
abbreviated as 1 - 0.999... or as 0.000...

It can be considerable shortened by 0 similar to the limit of my
sequence oo.

Regards, WM