Why the fuck do you keep changing your "From:" line?
You are no better than the trolls to whom you reply. If someone wants
to killfile you (and Lord knows there are reasons), then fucking well
let them.
Escaping killfiles by morphing your From line is despicable, son.
-- Jesse F. Hughes
"And a journal can beg me for the right to publish it [...] because
I'd rather see it in "People" magazine [...]" --James Harris on his simple proof of Fermat's last theorem
In article <87k3titjus.fsf...@phiwumbda.org>,
"Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:
> To Virgil:
> Why the fuck do you keep changing your "From:" line?
> You are no better than the trolls to whom you reply. If someone wants
> to killfile you (and Lord knows there are reasons), then fucking well
> let them.
Sorry!
I try to remember not to do it in what should be serious NG's like this sci.logic and sci.math, but only in ones like alt.atheism where creatinists try to ignore us atheists.
--
> In article
> <b8d67bf3-ec24-4451-8573-aa0a52799...@y6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > On 17 Nov., 23:08, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > On Nov 17, 5:23 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > > > On 17 Nov., 21:21, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > (nor is there a problem that WM two limits are different)-
> > > > Interesting. A nice claim.
> > > > The limit of a sequence may depend on the method which is used to
> > > > calculate it?
> > > Nope, but it does depend on which limit is used.
> > The Cauchy-limit or the Cantor-limit?
> > 1/((((((10^0)/10)+10^1)/10)+10^2)/10)+ = 0 (Cauchy)
> > 1/((((((10^0)/10)+10^1)/10)+10^2)/10)+ > 1 (Cantor)
> Theses are not, as claimed by WM inin another post, anything like
> continued fractions, so it is not clear what the finite terms are
> supposed to be.
It is clear to every sufficiently intelligent reader.
> And without knowing that, no limit can possibly be determined.
> Now if is just that "1/((((((10^0)/10)+10^1)/10)+10^2)/10)+ " is
> sufficiently ambiguous that Cauchy and Cantor disagree on what the
> finite sequences are which leads to this expression, I am not at all
> surprized.-
Thank you for implicitly confessing that you do not see a way how the
set theoretical limit { } of the indices of the integer-digits in
> I see no reason to suppose that the expression is well enough defined to
> have anything like a unique limit.
> If it is expressible as the limit of a sequence at all, then show us
> the terms of such a sequence.- Zitierten Text ausblenden -
> > I see no reason to suppose that the expression is well enough defined to
> > have anything like a unique limit.
> > If it is expressible as the limit of a sequence at all, then show us
> > the terms of such a sequence.
> Here you are:
> > > 01.
> > > 0.1
> > > 010.1
> > > 01.01
> > > 0101.01
> > > 010.101
> > > 01010.101
> > > 0101.0101
> > > ...
> Is this in fact more difficult to grasp than, say, the Conway
> sequence? Should I be proud for that reason?
It is STILL not at all clear that the sequence you indicated has any limit according to any standard definition of limit of a sequence.
What definition (with a URL which will verify its authenticity) do you propose to use on your sequence
WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 19 Nov., 01:10, Vurgil <Vur...@arg.erg> wrote:
> > In article
> > <b8d67bf3-ec24-4451-8573-aa0a52799...@y6g2000vbb.googlegroups.com>,
> > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > > On 17 Nov., 23:08, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > On Nov 17, 5:23 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > > > > On 17 Nov., 21:21, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > > > (nor is there a problem that WM two limits are different)-
> > > > > Interesting. A nice claim.
> > > > > The limit of a sequence may depend on the method which is used to
> > > > > calculate it?
> > > > Nope, but it does depend on which limit is used.
> > > The Cauchy-limit or the Cantor-limit?
> > > 1/((((((10^0)/10)+10^1)/10)+10^2)/10)+ = 0 (Cauchy)
> > > 1/((((((10^0)/10)+10^1)/10)+10^2)/10)+ > 1 (Cantor)
> > Theses are not, as claimed by WM inin another post, anything like
> > continued fractions, so it is not clear what the finite terms are
> > supposed to be.
> It is clear to every sufficiently intelligent reader.
> > And without knowing that, no limit can possibly be determined.
> > Now if is just that "1/((((((10^0)/10)+10^1)/10)+10^2)/10)+ " is
> > sufficiently ambiguous that Cauchy and Cantor disagree on what the
> > finite sequences are which leads to this expression, I am not at all
> > surprized.-
> Thank you for implicitly confessing that you do not see a way how the
> set theoretical limit { } of the indices of the integer-digits in
And I certainly DO see ways how WM's nonsense can be avoided.
A simple PLONK would do it, but I find more amusement in seeing WMs struggles to maintain what little sanity he has left and still support the insupportable.
