|
|
Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Posted:
Nov 26, 2012 10:18 AM
|
|
On Nov 25, 11:22 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> In article
> <be566287-1de6-426b-a9d8-420bb9279...@n2g2000pbp.googlegroups.com>,
> "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlay...@gmail.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.
> --
I wrote all that.
Regards,
Ross Finlayson
|
|
