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


Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Posted:
Nov 28, 2012 2:07 AM


In article <9a7d2fa5933a466992665627d204ecc1@kt16g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
> 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
One notes the total absence of any mathematical content to Ross' posting. 

