
Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Posted:
Nov 28, 2012 1:54 AM


On Nov 27, 9:45 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > In article > <fb43d5d1f3ad42949641d65ebfe2c...@y5g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>, > "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlay...@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. > > Nor can he! > 
That is simple dispute.
No, deaf dumb blind monkey, it is what it is.
It is what it is.
What it is.
Regards,
Ross Finlayson

