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