
Re: Finally the discussion is over: S = Lim S is a bad definition.
Posted:
Oct 3, 2017 6:22 PM


Or if you use the new mongo lingo of bird brain John Gabriel, you can also call it "not determinable". doesn't matter how you call it, a sequence is not the same as a value, but Euler clearly didn't use
sequence notation in his public tailored publication, he used the infinite sum notation, thats John Gabriels error, that he thinks the following is not a limit notation, but a sequence notation:
a1 + a2 + a3 + ...
Here you find a nice publication by Euler, where he indeed mentions a sequence, and he uses this notation:
(1), (2), (3), ... E334  Recherches generales sur la mortalite et la multiplication du genre humain http://eulerarchive.maa.org//docs/originals/E334.pdf
So the difference is that he uses a comma in the above, and not a summation sign. It is not the case that mathematicians only wrote up sequences after Euler, sequence notation existed already during times
of Euler. And clearly there is no Euler blunder S=Lim S, this is complete bird bran John Gabriel nonsense, to denote a sequence, Euler would have used the comma. BTW in the same paper E334, you later find
also sum instead of comma, so Euler was even able to use sequence and series side by side.
Am Dienstag, 3. Oktober 2017 23:51:43 UTC+2 schrieb burs...@gmail.com: > limit, since {an} or (an) wants to > indicate a multiplicity of values, but
John Gabriel schrieb: > Finally the discussion is over: S = Lim S is a bad definition. > > https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NBOsXf_UIg > > Comments are unwelcome and will be ignored. > > Posted on this newsgroup in the interests of public education and to eradicate ignorance and stupidity from mainstream mythmatics. > > gilstrang@gmail.com (MIT) > huizenga@psu.edu (HARVARD) > andersk@mit.edu (MIT) > david.ullrich@math.okstate.edu (David Ullrich) > djoyce@clarku.edu > markcc@gmail.com >

