Virgil
Posts:
4,482
Registered:
1/6/11
|
|
Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Posted:
Nov 28, 2012 2:09 PM
|
|
In article
<e2484fc9-f0b3-422a-9f6f-273333e902c3@me7g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
"Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Nov 27, 11:07 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <9a7d2fa5-933a-4669-9266-5627d204e...@kt16g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlay...@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.
> > --
>
> No, Hancher, EF: it is what it is.
And what that is is nothing of any use to anyone.
>
>
> So, go back to licking Muckenheim, here you just got beat.
>
> One notes that for what all you say there's nothing in it, you won't
> shut up about it.
Until you can demonstrate that there is anything in it,
which one notes that you have yet to do,
I will continue to hold that there is nothing in it.
--
|
|
