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 Q. 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