Virgil
Posts:
4,482
Registered:
1/6/11
|
|
Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Posted:
Nov 26, 2012 3:03 PM
|
|
In article
<ba2d403e-154a-46d2-9fc9-6e5ae92ede3e@vy11g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
"Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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.
Did you?
I certainly do not ever recall seeing your alleged EF adequately
presented, and see now no references to where one might see it
presented, whether adequately or not.
And if you still will not provide a reference to it, a url, or something
through which anyone can access it to see it for him or her self, it is
as if no such thing ever existed.
Which in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I will continue to
assume.
--
|
|
