In article <fb43d5d1-f3ad-4294-9641-d65ebfe2cd26@y5g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>, "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Your EF is, at least as so far presented, of no mathematical interest or > > impotance whatsoever. > > -- > > > As a function, it has particular results in the framework of results > on uncountability of the reals, different than any other.
Such results are more peculiar than particular, and are certainly in no way useful either to issues of cardinality of the reals nor any part of standard real analysis.
> And, it's > simply and standardly modeled by real functions.
Whatever of it is at all useful can be better achieved without it. > > That includes your quaint take on it.
My "quaint take" is that there is nothing mathematically useful cpable of being done with it that cannot better be done without it.
And Ross has certainly presented no mathematically sound evidences to the contrary.
