Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.



Re: Matheology § 261
Posted:
May 12, 2013 6:18 AM


On 11 Mai, 22:13, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > In article > <5c2d1ccc17634048a153592bc4153...@k8g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>, > > WM <mueck...@rz.fhaugsburg.de> wrote: > > But I can state by pure reason: If we agree that irrelevant lines of > > the list are irrelevant, then I am right and set theory is wrong. And > > that is completely satifactory for me. > > But what WM calls irrelevant is not irrelevant.
Not in matheology including far distance actions. But in mathematics and for every finite n the last line of
1 12 ... 12...n
is independent of the presence or absence of the preceding lines.
Regards, WM
> That different procedures may have the same limit does not mean that > their methods of arriving at a limit are irrelevant. > > And in all three cases, the last line, whether any other lines are kept > or not always includes the union of all prior lines of each process as > a proper subset, so no prior lines are lost,merely incorporated intl the > last line, and always the limit WM claims is merely the union of all > lines that are ever used in each process. > > That different sequences can have the same limit should not be news to > anyone who really understands mathematics, but appears to shock WM. > 



