Looking for second opinions about this. I engaged with the asker, with a view of getting them to eventually answer themself, and my comments seem to have helped them. A moderator later kindly reminded me of the principle of posting. I'm on a fence about this. It is, in some sense, my duty to compile the comments into an answer. At the time I felt like the question was lacking focus, often happens when the asker is confused about a concept.

(cont'd) The edits did improve the question a bit. But, as is often the case, each and every one of the multiple confusions have probably been covered already. Not in a single post though, which is a common enough problem with questions like this.

@JyrkiLahtonen I think that the question deserves an answer, in spite of the fact that much of it is due confusions concerning a concept.

CD

DV/Del dupe of FAQ, further lacking context for SV, and double very-high-rep cherry picking

Shall this be closed ? If yes , for which reason ?

D

D1, D2, D3.

D4, D5, D6.

D7, D8, D9.

D10, D11, D12.

C1, C2, C3.

C4, C5, C6.

C7, C8, C9.

C10, C11, C12.

@Peter I think... opinion-based. I cannot think of any mathematical reason for the preference. To retain the iteration I would use exp(−exp(−exp(−1))) ≈ 1/2, and this is none of the already numerous options...

opinion based math.stackexchange.com/q/4460961/29335

close This posting has several duplicates. For example, here the relevant order properties of the $\limsup_n$ are laid out

[ SmokeDetector | MS ] Link at beginning of body (40): Solving linear equation got stuck how to present solution set_? ✏️‭ by iamlearning355‭ on math.SE