On May 31, 4:40 pm, "T.H. Ray" <thray...@aol.com> wrote: > > 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/> > > So what is unclear? > > Tom
Nothing. It is perfectly clear that you have strung a lot of impressive sounding terms together, without any meaning whatsoever. You don't even make it to "not even wrong".