Re: -- Wrong limits do not commute

G. Rodrigues wrote:

Horand.Gassmann@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

On Sep 22, 4:44 am, Han de Bruijn

<Han.deBru...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx>

<snip>

Again, it's not so much the answer, but the
_question_ that disturbs me.
(Most of the time I can answer your questions
"correctly" and routinely)

What is right and what is wrong ? I could also have
introduced a more
euphemistic terminology and say the following. Limits
that are asked
for without awareness of Geometry might be called
_blind_. Those are
limits that are blindly asked for, without having a
picture in mind.
Then our working hypothesis is formulated as follows.
Limits that do
not commute are _blind_ limits.
They are only formal,
not geometrical,
hence irrelevant for mathematics _as a whole_.

You make scrambled eggs of someones else's posting quotes, huh?

Why, for just once, can't you drop the crank act and act with a little humility. Your arrogance is plainly insufferable, particularly when it is borne out of sheer ignorance. Really, for someone who does not even understand double iterated limits, to pontificate on how something is supposed to be irrelevant to mathematics is mind-boggling. It is not double iterated limits that are irrelevant, it is your ignorance and posturing. Your nonsense about "blind limits" or the supposed lack of geometrical picture or their purely formal status or whatnot is not a reflection on mathematics as a whole but is simply reflection on your own limitations and prejudices. It just so happens that you mr. de Bruijn do *not* have the adequate intuitions about these elementary things. And no, mathematical intuitions are not just geometrical, there are also those of algebraic and analytic type (rough division).

And edit for your own is void of NewLines, Carriage Return - LineFeeds.
But never mind .. I'll repeat my answer to Mariano for convenience.

<QUOTE>
Oh no ! This is a completely _objective_ definition. _Other_ people than
me (i.e. Virgil, Rodrigues, Hughes), have said repeatedly that they find
any geometrical intuition _irrelevant_. Only the formal algebraic result
seems to count. Considering them as representatives of mainstream maths,
this leads to the conclusion that common limits are developed without a
picture in mind, without seeing, therefore BLIND-ly. Since geometry _is_
an integral part of mathematics, since ancient times, blind limits _are_
limited to the algebraic part of mathematics, and thus _are_ irrelevant,
if mathematics is considered as a unification of algebra _and_ geometry,
for mathematics _as a whole_. But it seems that you are pissed, because
"blind" sounds pejorative. So does "false" in logic, and nobody has any
problems with it.</QUOTE>

Han de Bruijn

.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: -- Wrong limits do not commute
    ... for without awareness of Geometry might be called ... not commute are _blind_ limits. ... hence irrelevant for mathematics _as a whole_. ... algebra _and_ geometry, ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: -- Wrong limits do not commute
    ... While limits are often suggested by geometrical considerations, ... an integral part of mathematics, since ancient times, blind limits _are_ ... algebra which are independent of geometry. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: -- Wrong limits do not commute
    ... for without awareness of Geometry might be called _blind_. ... limits that are blindly asked for, without having a picture in mind. ... hence irrelevant for mathematics _as a whole_. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: -- Wrong limits do not commute
    ... for without awareness of Geometry might be called _blind_. ... limits that are blindly asked for, without having a picture in mind. ... hence irrelevant for mathematics _as a whole_. ... applications in sciences, such as physics. ...
    (sci.math)
  • not simple enough for a village idiot
    ... The village idiot on sci.logic seems to have a problem ... with the fact that logic and mathematics is sometimes ... theorem of geometry, going back to von Staudt ...
    (sci.logic)