![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
sniffnoy...although admittedly, without set theory, it would be kind of hard to state this sort of thing in the first place.
Doing complex analysis homework; want to prove a certain set has measure <1/n. Which I am thinking of as "all points meeting this condition lie in a set of measure <1/n". So I take a point, suppose it's in the set, well then it must be in one of these sets of measure <1/n. So it's in a set of measure <1/n!
It wasn't until I actually rewrote it in more set-theoretic language that I noticed the sheer dumbness of that. By that logic - well, any point lies in a set of measure 0, you can draw the conclusion...
-Harry
Doing complex analysis homework; want to prove a certain set has measure <1/n. Which I am thinking of as "all points meeting this condition lie in a set of measure <1/n". So I take a point, suppose it's in the set, well then it must be in one of these sets of measure <1/n. So it's in a set of measure <1/n!
It wasn't until I actually rewrote it in more set-theoretic language that I noticed the sheer dumbness of that. By that logic - well, any point lies in a set of measure 0, you can draw the conclusion...
-Harry
