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 6:30 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

BTW: It took me 2 minutes to find a sequence notation
in the works of Euler, maybe further examples can
be found. I used this website:

In 1910 and 1913, Swedish Mathematician Gustav
Eneström completed a comprehensive survey of
Euler's works. He counted and enumerated 866
distinct works, including books, journal articles,
and some letters he deemed to be especially important.
Each of these was assigned a number, from E1 to
E866, which is now referred to as the "Eneström
number." Most historical scholars today use
Eneström numbers to identify Euler's
writings quickly."

The sequence notation I found is not perfect,
since later in his paper he stops with his
mortality considerations at age=100.

But I guess everybody gets the idea...?!

j4n bur53 schrieb:
> 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.