Virgil
Posts:
8,833
Registered:
1/6/11


Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Posted:
Nov 26, 2012 2:22 AM


In article <be5662871de6426ba9d8420bb9279bd6@n2g2000pbp.googlegroups.com>, "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
> EF is simple and it's defined simply as a function, notareal > function, standardly modeled by real functions. Dirac's delta and > Heaviside's are as so defined, as functions, notrealfunctions, > 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. 

