Limit?

[Guest Doron Shadmi]

r is circle’s radius.

 

s' is a dummy variable (mathworld.wolfram.com/DummyVariable.html)

 

a) If r=0 then s'=|{}|=0 -> (no circle can be found) = A

 

b) If r>0 then s'=|{r}|=1 -> (a circle can be found) = B

 

The connection between A,B states cannot be but A_XOR_B

 

Also s' = 0 in case (a) and s' = 1 in case (b), can be described as s'=0_XOR_s'=1.

 

You can prove that A is the limit of B only if you can show that s'=0_AND_s'=1 -> 1

 

A collaction of elements, wich can be found on many different scales, really approaching to some given constant, only if it has finitely many elements.

[premjan]

You can prove that A is the limit of B only if you can show that s'=0_AND_s'=1 -> 1

 

I don't understand this line at all. Isn't the AND a contradiction?

[Guest Doron Shadmi]

This is exactly what I show, that A is not the limit of B, or more general, no constant is the limit of any infinitely many elements that can be arbitrary close to each other, therefore the limit idea is another conceptual mistake of the Standard approach, and should be replaced by a method that researches the internal properties of the collection itself, and not its relation to some hypothetic limit, that logically I clearly show that it does not hold.

 

Cauchy sequences are trivial approach that ignore infinitely many information forms that can be found between any two R members.

[premjan]

OK I see you would like to do away with the limit concept, but the limit is a property of the sequence, by the epsilon, n proof, isn't it?

 

What are "information forms"?

[Guest Doron Shadmi]

Hi premjan,

 

It is good to see your face, thank you for the picture.

 

Please read http://www.geocities.com/complementarytheory/ed.pdf in order to see what I have to say about the epsilon-delta.

[premjan]

my photo is a few years old (I have a few more pounds on me now).

[Guest Doron Shadmi]

so enjoy every pound of you.

[Dave]

This is exactly what I show' date=' that [b']A[/b] is not the limit of B, or more general, no constant is the limit of any infinitely many elements that can be arbitrary close to each other, therefore the limit idea is another conceptual mistake of the Standard approach, and should be replaced by a method that researches the internal properties of the collection itself, and not its relation to some hypothetic limit, that logically I clearly show that it does not hold.

 

Cauchy sequences are trivial approach that ignore infinitely many information forms that can be found between any two R members.

 

Yeah, great.

 

I am starting to get rather annoyed at the entire "all of the fundamental definitions/axioms in mathematics are wrong, and I am right" kind of thing that you've got going on here. Not only is the epsilon/delta argument a very, very good definition, but the limit concept is widely accepted the vast majority of the mathematical community.

 

If you want to go off and create your own little world to live in, go for it; nobody's going to stop you. However, if you want to come on here and tell us we're all wrong, then you'd better bring some serious arguments with you. What you've written above is quite simply a load of unintelligable rubbish.

 

Thread closed (unless anyone has any extreme problems with this).