On 12 Jan 2008, at 3:23 AM, Kalman Noel wrote:

Achim Schneider wrote:
Actually, lim( 0 ) * lim( inf ) isn't anything but equals one, and
the anything is defined to one (or, rather, is _one_ anything) to be
able to use the abstraction. It's a bit like the difference between
eight pens and a box of pens. If someone knows how to properly
formalise n = 1, please speak up.

Sorry if I still don't follow at all.

That's ok, neither does he.

  Here is how I understand (i. e.
have learnt) lim notation, with n ∈ N, a_n ∈ R.  (Excuse my poor
terminology, I have to translate this in my mind from German maths
language ;-).

OK so far. I actually had a professor in uni who would randomly switch to German during lectures; I'll do my best to follow your notation :)

  My point of posting this is that I don't see how to
accommodate the lim notation as I know it with your term. The limit of
infinity?  What is the limit of infinity,

If you extend your concept of `sequence' to include sequences of extended real numbers, the limit of the sequence that is identically inf is inf. Otherwise, the notation isn't really meaningful.

and why should I multiplicate
it with 0?  Why should I get 1?

    (1) lim a_n  = a                (where a ∈ R)
    (2) lim a_n  = ∞
    (3) lim a_n  = − ∞
    (4) lim { x → x0 } f(x) = y     (where f is a function into R)

    (1) means that the sequence of reals a_n converges towards a.

    (2) means that the sequence does not converge,

To a value in R. Again, inf is a perfectly well defined extended real number, and behaves like any other element of R u {-inf, inf}. (Although that structure isn't quite a field --- 0 * inf isn't defined, nor is inf - inf).

because you can
        always find a value that is /larger/ than what you hoped might
        be the limit.

    (3) means that the sequence does not converge, because you can
always find a value that is /smaller/ than what you hoped might
        be the limit.

(4) means that for any sequence of reals (x_n ∈ dom f) converging towards x0, we have lim f(x_n) = y. For this equation again, we
        have the three cases above.

jcc

_______________________________________________
Haskell-Cafe mailing list
Haskell-Cafe@haskell.org
http://www.haskell.org/mailman/listinfo/haskell-cafe

Reply via email to