Why is the Cantor set not defined by a limit? The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast? Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manaralim sup and lim inf of sequence of sets.measure preserving transformations on the ternary Cantor setAbout Cantor set: Cantor set + Cantor setHow to construct binary sequences associated to points of the Cantor set?Function on Cantor setWondering if something is an algebra. If it is, question about closure under complements.Are countably infinite unions limits?Transition from countable to uncountableFormal representation of the numbers of the Cantor set.Alternate definition of middle-$alpha$ Cantor set using affine transformations

Multi tool use
Multi tool use

"is" operation returns false even though two objects have same id

Do warforged have souls?

Make it rain characters

Why did Peik Lin say, "I'm not an animal"?

Did the new image of black hole confirm the general theory of relativity?

Accepted by European university, rejected by all American ones I applied to? Possible reasons?

Huge performance difference of the command find with and without using %M option to show permissions

Am I ethically obligated to go into work on an off day if the reason is sudden?

Why don't hard Brexiteers insist on a hard border to prevent illegal immigration after Brexit?

Is every episode of "Where are my Pants?" identical?

Why not take a picture of a closer black hole?

Variable with quotation marks "$()"

What do I do when my TA workload is more than expected?

Is this wall load bearing? Blueprints and photos attached

Presidential Pardon

What's the point in a preamp?

First use of “packing” as in carrying a gun

"... to apply for a visa" or "... and applied for a visa"?

What to do when moving next to a bird sanctuary with a loosely-domesticated cat?

How do I design a circuit to convert a 100 mV and 50 Hz sine wave to a square wave?

How to read αἱμύλιος or when to aspirate

Are spiders unable to hurt humans, especially very small spiders?

Is an up-to-date browser secure on an out-of-date OS?

Does Parliament need to approve the new Brexit delay to 31 October 2019?



Why is the Cantor set not defined by a limit?



The 2019 Stack Overflow Developer Survey Results Are In
Unicorn Meta Zoo #1: Why another podcast?
Announcing the arrival of Valued Associate #679: Cesar Manaralim sup and lim inf of sequence of sets.measure preserving transformations on the ternary Cantor setAbout Cantor set: Cantor set + Cantor setHow to construct binary sequences associated to points of the Cantor set?Function on Cantor setWondering if something is an algebra. If it is, question about closure under complements.Are countably infinite unions limits?Transition from countable to uncountableFormal representation of the numbers of the Cantor set.Alternate definition of middle-$alpha$ Cantor set using affine transformations










0












$begingroup$


The Cantor set, as showed in books and Wikipedia, is defined in terms of $C_k$, the finite Cantor set of level $k$:



$$ mathcalC = bigcap_k=1^infty C_k $$



But after intersection only the "last" remains, so, why not to define it by a limit?



$$mathcalC = lim_k to infty C_k$$



It is perhaps a naive intuition, but I not see a good justification.




(adding here a note after first answer, only for comment the comments)



NOTE: if it is not only a question of choice of notation, but also about context and semantics.
Can I tell an engineer that the intersection is a kind of specification, something like a project to explain "what I need", and the limit is a "what I get", the end result?    ...Or perhaps the inverse, as suggested by @HansLundmark (thanks the comment! also thnaks @SangchulLee!). I am supposing that $C_k$ is a "decreasing sequence", $C_1 supseteq C_2 supseteq C_3 supseteq dotsb$,
so using your anser we can say
 "it's natural to define the limit as the intersection: $C_n to mathcalC$ as $ntoinfty$",
 where $mathcalC$ is defined by intersection.



About comment of @LordShark: its is possible to use "limits" notation in the context of set sequences without "develop a theory" for it? @HansLundmark's link is a satisfactory answer for it?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Why develop a theory of "limits" of sets to define $cal C$ when it's simply an intersection?
    $endgroup$
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Mar 24 at 18:53






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The intersection is the limit in this case (when you have a decreasing sequence of sets). See here: math.stackexchange.com/questions/107931/…
    $endgroup$
    – Hans Lundmark
    Mar 24 at 18:54







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Of course we can perfectly make sense of $mathcalC = lim_ktoinfty C_k$. On the other hand, we need some works to put that notion to a rigorous mathematical framework. And that is sort of asking too much for this very specific case, as pointed out by others.
    $endgroup$
    – Sangchul Lee
    Mar 24 at 18:56











  • $begingroup$
    Hi @SangchulLee, I edited a note, can you check if it is ok?
    $endgroup$
    – Peter Krauss
    Mar 24 at 20:48






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The notion of limit explained in HansLundmark's answer is sufficient for this case, which is an instance of limit notion in lattice theory. It definitely works for your sequence. Since $mathcalC$ can be realized as a bona-fide limit, you can interpret $mathcalC$ as the ideal target and $C_n$ as approximations of $mathcalC$ whose accuracy improves progressively in $n$, just as for limits in $mathbbR$.
    $endgroup$
    – Sangchul Lee
    Mar 24 at 21:43
















0












$begingroup$


The Cantor set, as showed in books and Wikipedia, is defined in terms of $C_k$, the finite Cantor set of level $k$:



$$ mathcalC = bigcap_k=1^infty C_k $$



But after intersection only the "last" remains, so, why not to define it by a limit?



$$mathcalC = lim_k to infty C_k$$



It is perhaps a naive intuition, but I not see a good justification.




(adding here a note after first answer, only for comment the comments)



NOTE: if it is not only a question of choice of notation, but also about context and semantics.
Can I tell an engineer that the intersection is a kind of specification, something like a project to explain "what I need", and the limit is a "what I get", the end result?    ...Or perhaps the inverse, as suggested by @HansLundmark (thanks the comment! also thnaks @SangchulLee!). I am supposing that $C_k$ is a "decreasing sequence", $C_1 supseteq C_2 supseteq C_3 supseteq dotsb$,
so using your anser we can say
 "it's natural to define the limit as the intersection: $C_n to mathcalC$ as $ntoinfty$",
 where $mathcalC$ is defined by intersection.



About comment of @LordShark: its is possible to use "limits" notation in the context of set sequences without "develop a theory" for it? @HansLundmark's link is a satisfactory answer for it?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Why develop a theory of "limits" of sets to define $cal C$ when it's simply an intersection?
    $endgroup$
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Mar 24 at 18:53






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The intersection is the limit in this case (when you have a decreasing sequence of sets). See here: math.stackexchange.com/questions/107931/…
    $endgroup$
    – Hans Lundmark
    Mar 24 at 18:54







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Of course we can perfectly make sense of $mathcalC = lim_ktoinfty C_k$. On the other hand, we need some works to put that notion to a rigorous mathematical framework. And that is sort of asking too much for this very specific case, as pointed out by others.
    $endgroup$
    – Sangchul Lee
    Mar 24 at 18:56











  • $begingroup$
    Hi @SangchulLee, I edited a note, can you check if it is ok?
    $endgroup$
    – Peter Krauss
    Mar 24 at 20:48






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The notion of limit explained in HansLundmark's answer is sufficient for this case, which is an instance of limit notion in lattice theory. It definitely works for your sequence. Since $mathcalC$ can be realized as a bona-fide limit, you can interpret $mathcalC$ as the ideal target and $C_n$ as approximations of $mathcalC$ whose accuracy improves progressively in $n$, just as for limits in $mathbbR$.
    $endgroup$
    – Sangchul Lee
    Mar 24 at 21:43














0












0








0





$begingroup$


The Cantor set, as showed in books and Wikipedia, is defined in terms of $C_k$, the finite Cantor set of level $k$:



$$ mathcalC = bigcap_k=1^infty C_k $$



But after intersection only the "last" remains, so, why not to define it by a limit?



$$mathcalC = lim_k to infty C_k$$



It is perhaps a naive intuition, but I not see a good justification.




(adding here a note after first answer, only for comment the comments)



NOTE: if it is not only a question of choice of notation, but also about context and semantics.
Can I tell an engineer that the intersection is a kind of specification, something like a project to explain "what I need", and the limit is a "what I get", the end result?    ...Or perhaps the inverse, as suggested by @HansLundmark (thanks the comment! also thnaks @SangchulLee!). I am supposing that $C_k$ is a "decreasing sequence", $C_1 supseteq C_2 supseteq C_3 supseteq dotsb$,
so using your anser we can say
 "it's natural to define the limit as the intersection: $C_n to mathcalC$ as $ntoinfty$",
 where $mathcalC$ is defined by intersection.



About comment of @LordShark: its is possible to use "limits" notation in the context of set sequences without "develop a theory" for it? @HansLundmark's link is a satisfactory answer for it?










share|cite|improve this question











$endgroup$




The Cantor set, as showed in books and Wikipedia, is defined in terms of $C_k$, the finite Cantor set of level $k$:



$$ mathcalC = bigcap_k=1^infty C_k $$



But after intersection only the "last" remains, so, why not to define it by a limit?



$$mathcalC = lim_k to infty C_k$$



It is perhaps a naive intuition, but I not see a good justification.




(adding here a note after first answer, only for comment the comments)



NOTE: if it is not only a question of choice of notation, but also about context and semantics.
Can I tell an engineer that the intersection is a kind of specification, something like a project to explain "what I need", and the limit is a "what I get", the end result?    ...Or perhaps the inverse, as suggested by @HansLundmark (thanks the comment! also thnaks @SangchulLee!). I am supposing that $C_k$ is a "decreasing sequence", $C_1 supseteq C_2 supseteq C_3 supseteq dotsb$,
so using your anser we can say
 "it's natural to define the limit as the intersection: $C_n to mathcalC$ as $ntoinfty$",
 where $mathcalC$ is defined by intersection.



About comment of @LordShark: its is possible to use "limits" notation in the context of set sequences without "develop a theory" for it? @HansLundmark's link is a satisfactory answer for it?







cantor-set






share|cite|improve this question















share|cite|improve this question













share|cite|improve this question




share|cite|improve this question








edited Mar 25 at 12:24









Matt Samuel

39.2k63870




39.2k63870










asked Mar 24 at 18:48









Peter KraussPeter Krauss

1065




1065







  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Why develop a theory of "limits" of sets to define $cal C$ when it's simply an intersection?
    $endgroup$
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Mar 24 at 18:53






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The intersection is the limit in this case (when you have a decreasing sequence of sets). See here: math.stackexchange.com/questions/107931/…
    $endgroup$
    – Hans Lundmark
    Mar 24 at 18:54







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Of course we can perfectly make sense of $mathcalC = lim_ktoinfty C_k$. On the other hand, we need some works to put that notion to a rigorous mathematical framework. And that is sort of asking too much for this very specific case, as pointed out by others.
    $endgroup$
    – Sangchul Lee
    Mar 24 at 18:56











  • $begingroup$
    Hi @SangchulLee, I edited a note, can you check if it is ok?
    $endgroup$
    – Peter Krauss
    Mar 24 at 20:48






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The notion of limit explained in HansLundmark's answer is sufficient for this case, which is an instance of limit notion in lattice theory. It definitely works for your sequence. Since $mathcalC$ can be realized as a bona-fide limit, you can interpret $mathcalC$ as the ideal target and $C_n$ as approximations of $mathcalC$ whose accuracy improves progressively in $n$, just as for limits in $mathbbR$.
    $endgroup$
    – Sangchul Lee
    Mar 24 at 21:43













  • 2




    $begingroup$
    Why develop a theory of "limits" of sets to define $cal C$ when it's simply an intersection?
    $endgroup$
    – Lord Shark the Unknown
    Mar 24 at 18:53






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The intersection is the limit in this case (when you have a decreasing sequence of sets). See here: math.stackexchange.com/questions/107931/…
    $endgroup$
    – Hans Lundmark
    Mar 24 at 18:54







  • 1




    $begingroup$
    Of course we can perfectly make sense of $mathcalC = lim_ktoinfty C_k$. On the other hand, we need some works to put that notion to a rigorous mathematical framework. And that is sort of asking too much for this very specific case, as pointed out by others.
    $endgroup$
    – Sangchul Lee
    Mar 24 at 18:56











  • $begingroup$
    Hi @SangchulLee, I edited a note, can you check if it is ok?
    $endgroup$
    – Peter Krauss
    Mar 24 at 20:48






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    The notion of limit explained in HansLundmark's answer is sufficient for this case, which is an instance of limit notion in lattice theory. It definitely works for your sequence. Since $mathcalC$ can be realized as a bona-fide limit, you can interpret $mathcalC$ as the ideal target and $C_n$ as approximations of $mathcalC$ whose accuracy improves progressively in $n$, just as for limits in $mathbbR$.
    $endgroup$
    – Sangchul Lee
    Mar 24 at 21:43








2




2




$begingroup$
Why develop a theory of "limits" of sets to define $cal C$ when it's simply an intersection?
$endgroup$
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Mar 24 at 18:53




$begingroup$
Why develop a theory of "limits" of sets to define $cal C$ when it's simply an intersection?
$endgroup$
– Lord Shark the Unknown
Mar 24 at 18:53




1




1




$begingroup$
The intersection is the limit in this case (when you have a decreasing sequence of sets). See here: math.stackexchange.com/questions/107931/…
$endgroup$
– Hans Lundmark
Mar 24 at 18:54





$begingroup$
The intersection is the limit in this case (when you have a decreasing sequence of sets). See here: math.stackexchange.com/questions/107931/…
$endgroup$
– Hans Lundmark
Mar 24 at 18:54





1




1




$begingroup$
Of course we can perfectly make sense of $mathcalC = lim_ktoinfty C_k$. On the other hand, we need some works to put that notion to a rigorous mathematical framework. And that is sort of asking too much for this very specific case, as pointed out by others.
$endgroup$
– Sangchul Lee
Mar 24 at 18:56





$begingroup$
Of course we can perfectly make sense of $mathcalC = lim_ktoinfty C_k$. On the other hand, we need some works to put that notion to a rigorous mathematical framework. And that is sort of asking too much for this very specific case, as pointed out by others.
$endgroup$
– Sangchul Lee
Mar 24 at 18:56













$begingroup$
Hi @SangchulLee, I edited a note, can you check if it is ok?
$endgroup$
– Peter Krauss
Mar 24 at 20:48




$begingroup$
Hi @SangchulLee, I edited a note, can you check if it is ok?
$endgroup$
– Peter Krauss
Mar 24 at 20:48




1




1




$begingroup$
The notion of limit explained in HansLundmark's answer is sufficient for this case, which is an instance of limit notion in lattice theory. It definitely works for your sequence. Since $mathcalC$ can be realized as a bona-fide limit, you can interpret $mathcalC$ as the ideal target and $C_n$ as approximations of $mathcalC$ whose accuracy improves progressively in $n$, just as for limits in $mathbbR$.
$endgroup$
– Sangchul Lee
Mar 24 at 21:43





$begingroup$
The notion of limit explained in HansLundmark's answer is sufficient for this case, which is an instance of limit notion in lattice theory. It definitely works for your sequence. Since $mathcalC$ can be realized as a bona-fide limit, you can interpret $mathcalC$ as the ideal target and $C_n$ as approximations of $mathcalC$ whose accuracy improves progressively in $n$, just as for limits in $mathbbR$.
$endgroup$
– Sangchul Lee
Mar 24 at 21:43











1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes


















2












$begingroup$

Essentially, the intersection is the limit. There is no final set, and we don't want to appeal to any concept of convergence of sets or categorical limits when this is usually introduced in an undergraduate course because this would not be understood by the students. But you're allowed to take arbitrary intersections, and this is an elementary way to get the limit of a nested decreasing sequence of sets.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Can I tell an engineer that the intersection is a specification, something like a project to explain "what I need", and the limit is a "what I get", the end result?
    $endgroup$
    – Peter Krauss
    Mar 24 at 19:17






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @PeterKrauss: No, that is totally wrong. The intersection is equal to the limit (in the sense as discussed in the comments), and they are both the end result.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Mar 24 at 23:34










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks Matt and @EricWofsey, I am clicking here solved. Eric, I'm not sure, but I tend to agree. I improved my comment by editing the question, adding a note, there is a suggestion from LordShark, that is also in this direction of "they are both the end result".
    $endgroup$
    – Peter Krauss
    Mar 24 at 23:54











Your Answer








StackExchange.ready(function()
var channelOptions =
tags: "".split(" "),
id: "69"
;
initTagRenderer("".split(" "), "".split(" "), channelOptions);

StackExchange.using("externalEditor", function()
// Have to fire editor after snippets, if snippets enabled
if (StackExchange.settings.snippets.snippetsEnabled)
StackExchange.using("snippets", function()
createEditor();
);

else
createEditor();

);

function createEditor()
StackExchange.prepareEditor(
heartbeatType: 'answer',
autoActivateHeartbeat: false,
convertImagesToLinks: true,
noModals: true,
showLowRepImageUploadWarning: true,
reputationToPostImages: 10,
bindNavPrevention: true,
postfix: "",
imageUploader:
brandingHtml: "Powered by u003ca class="icon-imgur-white" href="https://imgur.com/"u003eu003c/au003e",
contentPolicyHtml: "User contributions licensed under u003ca href="https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/3.0/"u003ecc by-sa 3.0 with attribution requiredu003c/au003e u003ca href="https://stackoverflow.com/legal/content-policy"u003e(content policy)u003c/au003e",
allowUrls: true
,
noCode: true, onDemand: true,
discardSelector: ".discard-answer"
,immediatelyShowMarkdownHelp:true
);



);













draft saved

draft discarded


















StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3160873%2fwhy-is-the-cantor-set-not-defined-by-a-limit%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown

























1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes








1 Answer
1






active

oldest

votes









active

oldest

votes






active

oldest

votes









2












$begingroup$

Essentially, the intersection is the limit. There is no final set, and we don't want to appeal to any concept of convergence of sets or categorical limits when this is usually introduced in an undergraduate course because this would not be understood by the students. But you're allowed to take arbitrary intersections, and this is an elementary way to get the limit of a nested decreasing sequence of sets.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Can I tell an engineer that the intersection is a specification, something like a project to explain "what I need", and the limit is a "what I get", the end result?
    $endgroup$
    – Peter Krauss
    Mar 24 at 19:17






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @PeterKrauss: No, that is totally wrong. The intersection is equal to the limit (in the sense as discussed in the comments), and they are both the end result.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Mar 24 at 23:34










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks Matt and @EricWofsey, I am clicking here solved. Eric, I'm not sure, but I tend to agree. I improved my comment by editing the question, adding a note, there is a suggestion from LordShark, that is also in this direction of "they are both the end result".
    $endgroup$
    – Peter Krauss
    Mar 24 at 23:54















2












$begingroup$

Essentially, the intersection is the limit. There is no final set, and we don't want to appeal to any concept of convergence of sets or categorical limits when this is usually introduced in an undergraduate course because this would not be understood by the students. But you're allowed to take arbitrary intersections, and this is an elementary way to get the limit of a nested decreasing sequence of sets.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$












  • $begingroup$
    Can I tell an engineer that the intersection is a specification, something like a project to explain "what I need", and the limit is a "what I get", the end result?
    $endgroup$
    – Peter Krauss
    Mar 24 at 19:17






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @PeterKrauss: No, that is totally wrong. The intersection is equal to the limit (in the sense as discussed in the comments), and they are both the end result.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Mar 24 at 23:34










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks Matt and @EricWofsey, I am clicking here solved. Eric, I'm not sure, but I tend to agree. I improved my comment by editing the question, adding a note, there is a suggestion from LordShark, that is also in this direction of "they are both the end result".
    $endgroup$
    – Peter Krauss
    Mar 24 at 23:54













2












2








2





$begingroup$

Essentially, the intersection is the limit. There is no final set, and we don't want to appeal to any concept of convergence of sets or categorical limits when this is usually introduced in an undergraduate course because this would not be understood by the students. But you're allowed to take arbitrary intersections, and this is an elementary way to get the limit of a nested decreasing sequence of sets.






share|cite|improve this answer









$endgroup$



Essentially, the intersection is the limit. There is no final set, and we don't want to appeal to any concept of convergence of sets or categorical limits when this is usually introduced in an undergraduate course because this would not be understood by the students. But you're allowed to take arbitrary intersections, and this is an elementary way to get the limit of a nested decreasing sequence of sets.







share|cite|improve this answer












share|cite|improve this answer



share|cite|improve this answer










answered Mar 24 at 18:53









Matt SamuelMatt Samuel

39.2k63870




39.2k63870











  • $begingroup$
    Can I tell an engineer that the intersection is a specification, something like a project to explain "what I need", and the limit is a "what I get", the end result?
    $endgroup$
    – Peter Krauss
    Mar 24 at 19:17






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @PeterKrauss: No, that is totally wrong. The intersection is equal to the limit (in the sense as discussed in the comments), and they are both the end result.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Mar 24 at 23:34










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks Matt and @EricWofsey, I am clicking here solved. Eric, I'm not sure, but I tend to agree. I improved my comment by editing the question, adding a note, there is a suggestion from LordShark, that is also in this direction of "they are both the end result".
    $endgroup$
    – Peter Krauss
    Mar 24 at 23:54
















  • $begingroup$
    Can I tell an engineer that the intersection is a specification, something like a project to explain "what I need", and the limit is a "what I get", the end result?
    $endgroup$
    – Peter Krauss
    Mar 24 at 19:17






  • 1




    $begingroup$
    @PeterKrauss: No, that is totally wrong. The intersection is equal to the limit (in the sense as discussed in the comments), and they are both the end result.
    $endgroup$
    – Eric Wofsey
    Mar 24 at 23:34










  • $begingroup$
    Thanks Matt and @EricWofsey, I am clicking here solved. Eric, I'm not sure, but I tend to agree. I improved my comment by editing the question, adding a note, there is a suggestion from LordShark, that is also in this direction of "they are both the end result".
    $endgroup$
    – Peter Krauss
    Mar 24 at 23:54















$begingroup$
Can I tell an engineer that the intersection is a specification, something like a project to explain "what I need", and the limit is a "what I get", the end result?
$endgroup$
– Peter Krauss
Mar 24 at 19:17




$begingroup$
Can I tell an engineer that the intersection is a specification, something like a project to explain "what I need", and the limit is a "what I get", the end result?
$endgroup$
– Peter Krauss
Mar 24 at 19:17




1




1




$begingroup$
@PeterKrauss: No, that is totally wrong. The intersection is equal to the limit (in the sense as discussed in the comments), and they are both the end result.
$endgroup$
– Eric Wofsey
Mar 24 at 23:34




$begingroup$
@PeterKrauss: No, that is totally wrong. The intersection is equal to the limit (in the sense as discussed in the comments), and they are both the end result.
$endgroup$
– Eric Wofsey
Mar 24 at 23:34












$begingroup$
Thanks Matt and @EricWofsey, I am clicking here solved. Eric, I'm not sure, but I tend to agree. I improved my comment by editing the question, adding a note, there is a suggestion from LordShark, that is also in this direction of "they are both the end result".
$endgroup$
– Peter Krauss
Mar 24 at 23:54




$begingroup$
Thanks Matt and @EricWofsey, I am clicking here solved. Eric, I'm not sure, but I tend to agree. I improved my comment by editing the question, adding a note, there is a suggestion from LordShark, that is also in this direction of "they are both the end result".
$endgroup$
– Peter Krauss
Mar 24 at 23:54

















draft saved

draft discarded
















































Thanks for contributing an answer to Mathematics Stack Exchange!


  • Please be sure to answer the question. Provide details and share your research!

But avoid


  • Asking for help, clarification, or responding to other answers.

  • Making statements based on opinion; back them up with references or personal experience.

Use MathJax to format equations. MathJax reference.


To learn more, see our tips on writing great answers.




draft saved


draft discarded














StackExchange.ready(
function ()
StackExchange.openid.initPostLogin('.new-post-login', 'https%3a%2f%2fmath.stackexchange.com%2fquestions%2f3160873%2fwhy-is-the-cantor-set-not-defined-by-a-limit%23new-answer', 'question_page');

);

Post as a guest















Required, but never shown





















































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown

































Required, but never shown














Required, but never shown












Required, but never shown







Required, but never shown







Scg zsRvuchbZi7pvSem
AC6fn70iO

Popular posts from this blog

Football at the 1986 Brunei Merdeka Games Contents Teams Group stage Knockout stage References Navigation menu"Brunei Merdeka Games 1986".

Solar Wings Breeze Design and development Specifications (Breeze) References Navigation menu1368-485X"Hang glider: Breeze (Solar Wings)"e

Kathakali Contents Etymology and nomenclature History Repertoire Songs and musical instruments Traditional plays Styles: Sampradayam Training centers and awards Relationship to other dance forms See also Notes References External links Navigation menueThe Illustrated Encyclopedia of Hinduism: A-MSouth Asian Folklore: An EncyclopediaRoutledge International Encyclopedia of Women: Global Women's Issues and KnowledgeKathakali Dance-drama: Where Gods and Demons Come to PlayKathakali Dance-drama: Where Gods and Demons Come to PlayKathakali Dance-drama: Where Gods and Demons Come to Play10.1353/atj.2005.0004The Illustrated Encyclopedia of Hinduism: A-MEncyclopedia of HinduismKathakali Dance-drama: Where Gods and Demons Come to PlaySonic Liturgy: Ritual and Music in Hindu Tradition"The Mirror of Gesture"Kathakali Dance-drama: Where Gods and Demons Come to Play"Kathakali"Indian Theatre: Traditions of PerformanceIndian Theatre: Traditions of PerformanceIndian Theatre: Traditions of PerformanceIndian Theatre: Traditions of PerformanceMedieval Indian Literature: An AnthologyThe Oxford Companion to Indian TheatreSouth Asian Folklore: An Encyclopedia : Afghanistan, Bangladesh, India, Nepal, Pakistan, Sri LankaThe Rise of Performance Studies: Rethinking Richard Schechner's Broad SpectrumIndian Theatre: Traditions of PerformanceModern Asian Theatre and Performance 1900-2000Critical Theory and PerformanceBetween Theater and AnthropologyKathakali603847011Indian Theatre: Traditions of PerformanceIndian Theatre: Traditions of PerformanceIndian Theatre: Traditions of PerformanceBetween Theater and AnthropologyBetween Theater and AnthropologyNambeesan Smaraka AwardsArchivedThe Cambridge Guide to TheatreRoutledge International Encyclopedia of Women: Global Women's Issues and KnowledgeThe Garland Encyclopedia of World Music: South Asia : the Indian subcontinentThe Ethos of Noh: Actors and Their Art10.2307/1145740By Means of Performance: Intercultural Studies of Theatre and Ritual10.1017/s204912550000100xReconceiving the Renaissance: A Critical ReaderPerformance TheoryListening to Theatre: The Aural Dimension of Beijing Opera10.2307/1146013Kathakali: The Art of the Non-WorldlyOn KathakaliKathakali, the dance theatreThe Kathakali Complex: Performance & StructureKathakali Dance-Drama: Where Gods and Demons Come to Play10.1093/obo/9780195399318-0071Drama and Ritual of Early Hinduism"In the Shadow of Hollywood Orientalism: Authentic East Indian Dancing"10.1080/08949460490274013Sanskrit Play Production in Ancient IndiaIndian Music: History and StructureBharata, the Nāṭyaśāstra233639306Table of Contents2238067286469807Dance In Indian Painting10.2307/32047833204783Kathakali Dance-Theatre: A Visual Narrative of Sacred Indian MimeIndian Classical Dance: The Renaissance and BeyondKathakali: an indigenous art-form of Keralaeee