Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

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


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: Discussion with WM - Frustration reaches boiling point (What
is not clear?)

Replies: 8   Last Post: Jul 5, 2014 11:16 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
ross.finlayson@gmail.com

Posts: 1,207
Registered: 2/15/09
Re: Discussion with WM - Frustration reaches boiling point (What
is not clear?)

Posted: Jul 5, 2014 2:06 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 7/5/2014 11:00 AM, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> On 7/5/2014 10:48 AM, PotatoSauce wrote:
>> On Saturday, July 5, 2014 1:34:21 PM UTC-4, muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de
>> wrote:

>>> On Saturday, 5 July 2014 17:14:53 UTC+2, PotatoSauce wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>>>
>>>
>>>> If you are assuming from the start N doesn't exist
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I do not.
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>>> to prove that there is no bijection between N and Q, then your logic
>>>> is entirely off.

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I assume N to exist and to enumerate all rational numbers. Only
>>> mathematical reality of real analysis contradicts this assumption.
>>> That is called a proof by contradiction.
>>>

>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>>> You want lim card(s_n) to represent the cardinality of the sequence
>>>> s_n "at infinity."

>>>
>>>
>>>
>>> I do not assume that a limit exists. But I show that the sets cannot
>>> get empty even if a limit exist.
>>>

>>
>> But you agreed that
>>
>> lim t->0 (-t,0) u (0, t) = { }.
>>
>> You have also tacitly acknowledged that set limits pass through set
>> relation, thus
>>
>> {} <= lim t->0 { t/2 } <= lim t-> 0 (-t,0) u (0, t) = {}
>>
>> (using <= for subset)
>>
>> So clearly, we can have non-empty sets with empty limit sets.
>>
>>
>>

>
> And so clearly the other way?
>
> You can see from topology
> running out either, I would hope.
>
> Would you agree that there are
> definitions in topology? At all?
>
>


That is, Mr. "PotatoSauce".

This is usenet, there are still people
who swear to what they write here.

Usually as themselves!





Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.