
Re: 2.01  In words and pictures: The mainstream definition of limit fails when f is a constant function.
Posted:
Jul 11, 2014 2:11 AM


On Thursday, July 10, 2014 8:21:53 PM UTC+2, John Dawkins wrote:
> You seem to have things backwards here, John.
> the phrase "2+2=4 whenever x > 5" is logically equivalent to an implication A ==> B, in which A is the statement "x > 5" and B is the statement "2+2=4".
In which case there is no connection whatsoever between the statements.
x > 5 DOES NOT IMPLY 2+2=4
Just as it does not imply 4+4=8!
There is NO CONNECTION.
> The truth table for A ==> B is as follows:
A B A ==> B _______________ T  T  T T  F  F F  T  T F  F  T
> (illustrating that A ==> B is logically equivalent to [~A or B]).
> Since B is true in the present case, the implication A==> B is true.
Hate to break this to you, but your 'truth' table is nonsense. :)

