Re: ** says: Definition: sum{i in N} i = 0

Franziska Neugebauer wrote:
WM wrote:

On 23 Jun., 16:23, Franziska Neugebauer <Franziska-
Neugeba...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
WM wrote:
And in your and your company's opinion, a Cauchy proof of
divergence in R does not prove that there is no real limit, but
rather that a real limit may be chosen arbitrarily and, after
having done so, may not be subject to test by Cauchy's method?
You evade the issue,
I think, it is you who evades the issue.

I have stated:

,----[ <467d060f$0$97270$892e7fe2@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> ]
| Authorities of "orthodox mathematics" are those professionals of
| mathematics (n.b.: mathematics and not general sciences) who feel
| addressed by the term "authorities of orthodox mathematics". By simple
| majority they will certainly be able to judge whether this or that
| rule, definition or axiom belongs to the body of what they think
| "orthodox mathematics" is.

and asked:

| OK? `----

We have not yet got any answer from you. Hence you are evading the
issue.

And in your and your company's opinion, a Cauchy proof of divergence
in R does not prove that there is no real limit, but rather that a
real limit may be chosen arbitrarily and, after having done so, may
not be subject to test by Cauchy's method?
Therefore I repeat:
Would you be so kind to answer just this point?
Would you be so kind to answer just this last question?

If you read and understand what I have written elsewhere you would know
that ***'s definition is not about limits but about an undefined
sum-Symbol and that it is the faulty reasoning of yours which
implicitly assumes some kind of "retroaction".

F. N.

Hi Franziska -

I replied to your "sum{i in N} i = 0" post. I hope you find it interesting. :

Tony
.

Quantcast