Re: uniqueness of limits at infinity
From: Dave Seaman (dseaman_at_no.such.host)
Date: 09/21/04
- Next message: Paul Leyland: "Re: Special form numbers factorization"
- Previous message: Narasimham G.L.: "Cross-Ratio of 4 Concurrent Lines"
- In reply to: David C. Ullrich: "Re: uniqueness of limits at infinity"
- Next in thread: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz: "Re: uniqueness of limits at infinity"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 21 Sep 2004 12:51:51 +0000 (UTC)
On Tue, 21 Sep 2004 06:03:22 -0500, David C Ullrich wrote:
> Of course limits _are_ unique, so the notation doesn't actually
> need to be changed. But until we've proved that limits are
> unique it's very bad notation, because it gives the impression
> that there's nothing to be proved.
Limits in T1 spaces are unique. That does show that it doesn't hold "by
definition".
-- Dave Seaman Judge Yohn's mistakes revealed in Mumia Abu-Jamal ruling. <http://www.commoncouragepress.com/index.cfm?action=book&bookid=228>
- Next message: Paul Leyland: "Re: Special form numbers factorization"
- Previous message: Narasimham G.L.: "Cross-Ratio of 4 Concurrent Lines"
- In reply to: David C. Ullrich: "Re: uniqueness of limits at infinity"
- Next in thread: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz: "Re: uniqueness of limits at infinity"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
