The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

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

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

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Finally the discussion is over: S = Lim S is a bad definition.
Replies: 14   Last Post: Oct 6, 2017 10:47 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Jan Burse

Posts: 1,472
Registered: 4/12/05
Re: Finally the discussion is over: S = Lim S is a bad definition.
Posted: Oct 3, 2017 6:22 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

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

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
> 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.
> 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.
> (MIT)
> (MIT)
> (David Ullrich)

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

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.