In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com wrote:
> On Tuesday, 25 June 2013 02:21:13 UTC+2, Zeit Geist wrote: > > On Monday, June 24, 2013 2:08:22 PM UTC-7, muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote: > > On Monday, 24 June 2013 21:00:47 UTC+2, Zeit Geist wrote: > > > > > On Monday, June 24, 2013 11:30:02 AM UTC-7, muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de > > > wrote: > > As Vigil stated above, your sequence and its limit have no > > > Mathematical Foundation. > > > > > > WM has no mathematical foundation. What goes on in WM's wild weird world of WMytheology is not mathematics.
> > Look into a book on set theory: > The finite cardinals are smaller than the first infinite cardinal. > For all n in N: n < aleph_0 > > > You can't "divide" infinite cardinals like that. > > And like what can you do it? > If you see that A > n, can you conclude that 1/A < 1/n?
Then in WM'S WILD WEIRD WORLD OF WMYTHEOLOGY, 0 > -1 MUST MEAN 1/0 < 1/-1
> > But I am glad to see that you begin to understand that there something is > rotten
But here it occurs in WMytheology, rather than in Denmark.
> The sequence a_n = min(100, |(N - F(n))|) is certainly properly defined? > It is 100, 100, 100, ... and it "converges" to limit 0. > > Properly enough?
OUTSIDE OF WM's wild weird world of WMytheology, any infinite sequence all of whose values are equal has that value as its limit.
At least everywhere outside of WM's wild weird world of WMytheology.
It is clear that WM has still not figured out his error in defining limits. --