On Jun 26, 9:34 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > On Jun 24, 10:53 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > Addition: Have you ever understood that there is no infinite sequence > > (a_n) that defines its limit a? > > Actually every convergent sequence does, > > >You can see this by leaving out the > > first n terms a_n - and that holds for every n. > > That every subsequence of a convergent sequence also converges to the > same limit value does not falsify the limit of the original sequence. > > Except possibly in WM's mathological miasmas. > > > (You cannot specify > > any n such that the a_n would be required. > > That is just because no finite sequence is an infinite sequence.
It is of course also WM's favourite obfuscation, predicated on the fuzzy meaning of "can be omitted". It's muddled thinking and quantifier dyslexia at its best. The good professor seems on top of his game these days.