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


Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Posted:
Nov 27, 2012 2:34 PM


In article <ff6de177a8db461e9048b054aae71ba6@ah9g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>, "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 11:33 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > In article > > <b144a62b11a543979c0decd39e274...@6g2000pbh.googlegroups.com>, > > "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlay...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > On Nov 26, 12:03 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > > > In article > > > > <ba2d403e154a46d29fc96e5ae92ed...@vy11g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, > > > > "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlay...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > > > 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. > > > > > > 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. > > > >  > > > > >http://mathforum.org/kb/search!execute.jspa?forumID=13&objID=f13&forc... > > > rch=true&q=%22Equivalency+Function%22 > > > at least hundreds of results > > > > Not one of which posts contains an original definition of what the > > alleged "equivalency function" actually is, only a lot of crap by Ross > > about how it is the greatest things since sliced bread. > > > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/ccb0941dc3421afd > > > > I find a citation from r 9/22/99 In which Ross states, what may well be > > Ross' original "definition" of his alleged "Equivalency Function" which > > as any mathematician can plainly see is not a function at all, and is > > only equivalent to nonsense:: > > > > " Consider the function > > f(x, d)= x/d > > for x and d in N. The domain of x is N from zero to d and the domain of > > d is N as d goes to > > infinity, d being greater than or equal to one. > > I term this the Equivalency Function, and note it EF(x,d), also EF(x), > > assuming d goes to > > infinity." > > > > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/af29323d694cf89e1999  > > "Equivalency Function" > > > > > > > > > My friends, or as I would so address you, the definition of EF is > > > written in some few lines: constantly monotonically increasing from > > > zero through one. > > > > Anyone who would call that mess a function, when it is either two > > separate functions or infinitely many depending on which part of the > > "definition" one is reading, is no mathematician. > > > > Ant the only thing it demonstrates is Ross' total inability to think > > mathematically. > > > > I do not find any area of mathematics which would not be improved by its > > total absence. > > > > > > I have a mathematics degree
I have three of them, so what?
Your EF is, at least as so far presented, of no mathematical interest or impotance whatsoever. 

