> On Thu, 31 May 2007 13:38:39 EDT, T.H. Ray wrote: > > > No, of course not. Again, you need to read > everything > > in context of the claims. There is much more to > > Cantor's theory than this simple proposition. The > OP's > > claim depends on a geometrical interpretation of > the > > difference between 0.999... and unity. If the CH > > is true, no such interpretation is possible. If > the > > CH is not used, the OP's terms are not > differentiable. > > > The CH was used in my explanation to illustrate the > > rules of geometrical constraint, betweeness as Weyl > > referred to it. Cantor's theory teaches us that > there > > is no abstract betweenness, and real analysis > teaches > > us that limit functions produce real results. Then > the > > OP's proposition has no harbor--we are either > talking > > about measured real results, or not. Any proof of > his > > claim would have to incorporate measured real > results, > > and when attempted would necessarily show the > > equivalence of his terms; i.e. things that are not > > differentiable are identical. > > That's an impressive buzzword generator you have > there. > > > -- > Dave Seaman > Oral Arguments in Mumia Abu-Jamal Case heard May 17 > U.S. Court of Appeals, Third Circuit > <http://www.abu-jamal-news.com/>
