Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Topic: Matheology § 152
Replies: 53   Last Post: Nov 19, 2012 4:49 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Uirgil Posts: 185 Registered: 4/18/12
Re: Matheology � 152
Posted: Nov 17, 2012 10:27 PM

In article <k88p6q\$sd\$1@dont-email.me>,
"LudovicoVan" <julio@diegidio.name> wrote:

> "Uirgil" <uirgil@uirgil.ur> wrote in message
> news:uirgil-B4A0C7.11095217112012@BIGNEWS.USENETMONSTER.COM...

> > In article <k88h5n\$eeo\$1@dont-email.me>,
> > "LudovicoVan" <julio@diegidio.name> wrote:

> >> "William Hughes" <wpihughes@gmail.com> wrote in message

> >> > On Nov 17, 9:59 am, "LudovicoVan" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote:
> >> >> "William Hughes" <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote in message
> >> >> .
> >> >>

> >> >> > Note that *set* limits have some important properties.
> >> >>
> >> >> > Given a sequence of sets {B_1,B_2,B_3,...}
> >> >> > then the set limit always exists (it
> >> >> > may be the empty set).

> >> >>
> >> >> > If we have
> >> >>
> >> >> > A = set limit {B_1,B_2,B_3....}
> >> >>
> >> >> > Then
> >> >>
> >> >> > A is a set
> >> >> > A cannot contain an element that is not contained
> >> >> > in any of the B's

> >> >>
> >> >> Williams going around, in circles:
> >> >>
> >> >> It was already mentioned that it is wrong to use that specific
> >> >> definition
> >> >> to
> >> >> solve the balls and vase problem.
> >> >>
> >> >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_superior_and_limit_inferior#Special_
> >> >> cas
> >> >> e:_discrete_metric>

> >> >
> >> > The problem is the above applies to *any* definition of a *set* limit.

> >>
> >> But those definitions are a *specific* case of these:
> >>
> >> <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Limit_superior_and_limit_inferior#Sequences_o
> >> f_s
> >> ets>
> >>
> >> I sometimes wonder which planet you come from.

> >
> > Irrelevant Ad Hom noted!
> >
> > Actually, William HUghes' "definition" is quite carefully non-specific,
> > and while it certainly includes both a lim_sups and a lim_infs, is in no
> > way limited to only those.
> >
> > So that, as usual, LV has things inverted.

>
> The one who has got something inverted here is you.

Another in the long line of LV's irrelevant ad homs noted!
>
> You are again invited to stop the spam and disturbance
>
> -LV
>

I would, but I have no power to shut off either WM or LV.

Date Subject Author
11/16/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/16/12 William Hughes
11/16/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/16/12 LudovicoVan
11/16/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/16/12 Uirgil
11/16/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/16/12 LudovicoVan
11/16/12 Uirgil
11/16/12 William Hughes
11/16/12 Uirgil
11/17/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/17/12 LudovicoVan
11/17/12 LudovicoVan
11/17/12 Uirgil
11/17/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/17/12 Uirgil
11/17/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/17/12 LudovicoVan
11/17/12 William Hughes
11/17/12 trj
11/17/12 LudovicoVan
11/17/12 William Hughes
11/17/12 LudovicoVan
11/17/12 Uirgil
11/17/12 LudovicoVan
11/17/12 Uirgil
11/17/12 William Hughes
11/17/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/17/12 William Hughes
11/18/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/18/12 William Hughes
11/18/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/18/12 William Hughes
11/18/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/18/12 William Hughes
11/18/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/18/12 Vurgil
11/18/12 Vurgil
11/18/12 Vurgil
11/19/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/19/12 Vurgil
11/18/12 Vurgil
11/19/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/19/12 Vurgil
11/17/12 Uirgil
11/17/12 Uirgil
11/17/12 trj
11/17/12 Uirgil
11/17/12 Uirgil
11/17/12 mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
11/17/12 Virgil
11/18/12 gus gassmann