On 11 Mai, 22:13, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > In article > <5c2d1ccc-1763-4048-a153-592bc4153...@k8g2000vbz.googlegroups.com>, > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.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.
> 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. > --