Why did retarded mathematicians invent something as stupid as

>>7781558

it's all tautologies anyway senpai

>>7781558
>itt anon has a hard time when meeting rigorous mathematics for the first time.

It'll come to you eventually, brah. Remember you get the freedom to conjecture some limit and some N.

Just identify the co-domain and then find the supremum or infimum of that set, it it necessarily well-defined. Thats it, shitstick faggot.

File: White Whisky drinking innocent and good man.jpg (21KB, 600x574px) Image search: [Google]

21KB, 600x574px

>>7781567
>>7781568

Alright, I'll take a drink and calm down.

>>7781558
Limits actually are an engineering thing already and most proofs in engineering use limits.

Mathematicians will go full epsilon-delta autism more often.

>>7781595

Yeah and this is what gets me. We use epsilon-N/epsilon-n0 however and the annoying part is that this kind of proof is not very concrete in its nature. At the end of the proof you still have the freedom to chose N, n and epsilon as you wish so what gives? I mean you will always be able to fulfill the inequality for any epsilon.

>Even when trying to PROVE that a limit for a certain series exists, the proof just suddenly stops and q.e.d. Then you just whatever the fuck you want for your inputs and you're done. Circulatory logic at its finest.

wat

I would like to know what OP actually thinks.

ITT op announces to /sci/ that he doesn't know what a derivative is

>>7781611
I'll be honest with you. Most "advanced" higher level math seems to expand structures of more "basic" concepts in calculus, however, I rarely see how it's any more rigorous or general than the basic structures. Honestly, it's just different and more convoluted notation meaning the same thing.

>>7781611
>I mean you will always be able to fulfill the inequality for any epsilon.
Do you not understand that this is what you're proving?

The whole point of an epsilon-delta proof is to show you can do this. If there's an epsilon it doesn't work for, the number you called the "limit" isn't actually the limit.

>>7781611
Learn to quantifiers, anon. It will make your life better.

File: limitations.jpg (14KB, 410x250px) Image search: [Google]

14KB, 410x250px

Lrn-UR-limits

>>7781623
Itt op announces that he has never taken calculus
Fixed that for you

>>7781558
Theres literally no ambiguity in the definition of a limit . i think you're confusing generality with ambiguity

Of all the math concepts you will have to learn, this one is probably the most intuitive.
I really don't see the big deal (I'm probably being trolled tho). The definition basically says that, no matter how small a frame you take around the limit, all the terms of the sequence will get in there if you wait long enough.
It's literally what "approaching" means.
I get that it is not easy to work with at the beginning but it really is intuitive

>my intelligence is too low to understand limits
>therefore, it's stupid and ambiguous

gtfo

>>7783038

This is 4chan, did you expect to meet anyone with an IQ over 90?

File: no_limits_logo.jpg (31KB, 360x360px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 360x360px

>>7781558
http://www.pdf-archive.com/2016/01/14/limits/

here you go anon

Don't know what to make of this desu senpai

> choosing pi and circle rather than an n-gon
> not defining things carefully in general
> choosing any approximation over an exact value
> suddenly wonder that some things cant be proven
> paradoxes everywhere

T-thanks mathtists

>>7784344
>mathematics
>not defining things carefully in general

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHA!!! Seriously, go fuck yourself.

>>7783038
> The definition basically says that, no matter how small a frame you take around the limit, all the terms of the sequence will get in there if you wait long enough.
Yeah but then there is the propability to get the exact value of a real number (which is 0), therefore the the chance to get the exact value of a limit is also 0 and you cant construct a frame around something that you cant choose.

Thats like saying x+-1 exist but x doesnt

>>7784349
> N is a set of numbers
> N +( N*-1 ) is a set of numbers called Z
> (N*(N-1))/N is a set of numbers called Q and allow infinitsimals instead of maiking use of a mixed radix
> invent nth sqrt and log and shit
> throw Q in it all over the place
> shit on any order and functional connection
> call it R
"well defined"

>>7781558
This has got to be a troll thread. Nobody can be this stupid.