Re: Calculus XOR Probability


Han de Bruijn wrote:
Robert Low wrote:
There is no problem. Nobody disputes that
lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} (n. 1/n) = 1
But nobody except you (and Tony?) thinks that you can meaningfully
claim that
lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} (n.1/n) =
(lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} n).(lim_{n \rightarrow \infty} 1/n)
The result lim(a_n b_n) = (lim a_n)(lim b_n) is only guaranteed to
be true if a_n and b_n both converge. Since this condition is not
satisfied in the above example, there is no foundation for your
argument.
I'm not aware of the "fact" that I've ever claimed this nonsense.

Yes, that's probably the root of the problem.

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Math as an Experimental Science
    ... Han de Bruijn wrote: ... theorem, is so long and complex that nobody can read it, (ie, is ... Huh, huh. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Math as an Experimental Science
    ... William Elliot wrote: ... theorem, is so long and complex that nobody can read it, (ie, is ... Han de Bruijn ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Bye
    ... Han de Bruijn ... It's a bit like the weather - Everyone talks about it, but nobody ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Polynomial with three roots.
    ... (a, b, c, k are positive integer) ... I'm a bit surprised that the IMO excellent posting by Nobody is not ... Han de Bruijn ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Why exp(-st) in the Laplace Transform?
    ... On 11/25/2004 12:17 PM, Han de Bruijn wrote: ... Thank you Han, ... The first reason for me to submit to ... viel schneidiger unternommen, doch gänzlich mißlang und jetzt zumal, wo ...
    (sci.math)