Dennis Paul Himes wrote:

> Carlos Thompson <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>     What you write below is basically correct, but your terminology
is a bit
> strange, and you make a minor mistake or two:
> >   Given the series {a_n}; given any positive real epsilon, there
is a
> > natural N shuch as any naturals n > N and m > N, | a_n - a_m | <
> > epsilon.
>     This sort of sequence (not "series") is a Cauchy sequence.
> >   However such a series could not converge in Q.
>     Close.  This sort of sequence does not necessarily converge in

That's why I said "could not" and not "do not".

On the other hand, thank you for your corrections.  About the
terminology, I learned math in Spanish (I once took a class on
discrete math in Swedish but I knew little Swedish then... ;-p) then I
could be translating wrong the terminology.

-- Carlos Th