Virgil
Posts:
4,482
Registered:
1/6/11
|
|
Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Posted:
Nov 28, 2012 2:07 AM
|
|
In article
<9a7d2fa5-933a-4669-9266-5627d204ecc1@kt16g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
"Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 27, 9:45 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <fb43d5d1-f3ad-4294-9641-d65ebfe2c...@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.
--
|
|
