In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Ross A. Finlayson" <email@example.com> wrote:
> EF is simple and it's defined simply as a function, not-a-real- > function, standardly modeled by real functions. Dirac's delta and > Heaviside's are as so defined, as functions, not-real-functions, > standardly modeled by real functions. And, the definition of function > itself, here is modern and reflects over time the development of the > definition of what is a mathematical function. Then, in actually > extending the definition of what are the real numbers, in A theory, it > is directly defined, and applied. > > There are hundreds of essays on it here.
Then give a reference to some of them, preferably by someone other than yourself.
In particular we need a mathematically satisfactorily definition of your alleged EF, again preferably by someone other than yourself, which will take it out of the realm of mythology. --