rationalskepticism.org

Thommo wrote:

cavarka9 wrote:

Thommo wrote:He understood my question and I understood his answer. Both are demonstrably intelligible.

It relates to (one of) the rigorous formulations of infinity in mathematics - which is the correct discipline for the study of quantity, which is what "infinity" is - any quantity defined to be greater than any finite quantity (where a finite quantity is essentially any quantity that can be obtained by a terminating process of successive addition of the number 1 "1+1+1+1+...+1", or is bounded above by such a quantity).

In this case given an algebraic form of a sequence xn (1/2n in the given example) we can talk about it's limit as n tends to infinity (what you might informally think of as what happens when n "is" infinite), with a sequence converging to some value l (in this case 0, or "nowt" in colloquial English) if for any given margin of error ɛ there is some value of n, such that for all terms greater than that n: l-ɛ < xn < l+ɛ (i.e. that we can always get within any target margin of error by going high enough in the sequence).

i get it, but it must be said that n tends to infinity. because for n between 0 and 1, its not zero.

Again - You specified that in the topic:

cavarka9 wrote:Rules are simple, one asks the question and the other answers it from point of infinity.