
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 > <be5662871de6426ba9d8420bb9279...@n2g2000pbp.googlegroups.com>, > "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlay...@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. > 
I wrote all that.
Regards,
Ross Finlayson

