Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum



Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by Drexel University or The Math Forum.


Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math.independent

Topic: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Replies: 85   Last Post: Dec 10, 2012 7:23 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Virgil

Posts: 7,025
Registered: 1/6/11
Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Posted: Nov 30, 2012 12:51 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In article
<fcaa9d75-0b4c-4ccf-abb6-e4ee1f3e91b2@i7g2000pbf.googlegroups.com>,
"Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Nov 29, 9:13 am, Marshall <marshall.spi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > On Thursday, November 29, 2012 7:18:59 AM UTC-8, Ross A. Finlayson wrote:
> > > On Nov 28, 4:58 pm, Marshall <marshall.spi...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > > Um, so EF is a restriction of division?
> >
> > > > The domain of x depends on the value of d. I don't recall having seen
> > > > that sort of thing before, but I guess I do know what that means.
> > > > But I can't figure out what the domain of d is. It sorta looks like the
> > > > domain of d depends on what d is, but what the heck would that mean?

> >
> > > > And it's just a name, but what about EF has anything to do with
> > > > equivalency?

> >
> > > > Marshall
> >
> > > Mr. Spight, it's about the equivalency or equipollency or equipotency
> > > of infinite sets.

> >
> > Ok.
> >

> > >    EF(n) = n/d, d->oo, n->d.
> >
> > I'm not very good with limits, so I'm not sure exactly what this means.
> > Are you saying that the value of EF is a limit? A double limit? Also
> > I'm not sure how n can approach d when n is a parameter of EF.
> >
> > I guess also you're saying EF is *not* a restriction on division.
> >

> > > Properties include:
> > >    EF(0) = 0
> > >    EF(d) = 1
> > >    EF(n) < EF(n+1)
> > > The domain of the function is of those natural integers 0 <= n <= d.

> >
> > Whoa, you lost me. Here, EF has only one parameter, and you show
> > 1.  EF(0) = 0
> > 2.  EF(d) = 1
> > but also
> > 3.  EF(n) < EF(n+1)
> >
> > But it seems you have done some hidden binding of d that I'm not
> > clear about. Given 2. above, EF applied to any nonzero number yields
> > 1, which contradicts your 3. above. What gives?
> >

> > > It's very simple this.  Then, not a real function, it's standardly
> > > modeled by real functions:
> > >    EF(n,d) = n/d, d E N, n->d
> > > with each having those same properties.

> >
> > > Then, the co-image is R[0,1] as is the range.
> >
> > I'm not following.
> >
> > Marshall

>
>
> Basically this reads that d is unbounded and n ranges from zero
> through d.
>
> EF(n,d) is a family of functions, with d unbounded it's a particular
> EF(n) with properties modeled by those standard real functions, in a
> similar way as to how, for example, Dirac's delta or Heaviside's step
> are so modeled.
>
> Being dense in the reals, in its range, leads to a variety of
> considerations of anywhere dense elements in their natural order.


A family of functions or its alleged limit function can hardly be "dense
in the reals" according to any standard topology or linear ordering, at
least in any proper mathematical sense.

But then nothing about Ross' "EF" makes any sort of mathematical sense.
>
> The reals: well-ordered.


Not by Ross. While by some considered theoretically possible, no one has
yet come up with any explicit well-ordering of the reals, and for Ross
to suggest that he has done it is the arrogance of abject ignorance.
>
--




Date Subject Author
11/25/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
11/25/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Virgil
11/25/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
11/25/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Graham Cooper
11/25/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
11/25/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Virgil
11/25/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
11/26/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Virgil
11/26/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
11/26/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Virgil
11/26/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
11/26/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Virgil
11/27/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
11/27/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Virgil
11/27/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
11/27/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Virgil
11/27/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
11/28/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Virgil
11/28/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
11/28/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Virgil
11/28/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
11/28/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Virgil
11/29/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
11/29/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Virgil
11/29/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
11/30/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Virgil
11/30/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
FredJeffries@gmail.com
11/30/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
11/30/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
FredJeffries@gmail.com
11/30/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
12/1/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Virgil
11/30/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
12/1/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Virgil
12/1/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
12/1/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Virgil
12/1/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
FredJeffries@gmail.com
12/1/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
12/1/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Virgil
12/2/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
12/2/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Virgil
12/2/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
12/2/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Virgil
12/3/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
12/3/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Virgil
12/3/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Virgil
12/3/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
12/3/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Virgil
12/3/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
12/4/12
Read Re: Ross' Delusions re his EF.
Virgil
12/4/12
Read Re: Ross' Delusions re his EF.
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
12/4/12
Read Re: Ross' Delusions re his EF.
Virgil
12/4/12
Read Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
12/4/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
12/4/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Virgil
12/4/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Virgil
12/4/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Virgil
12/5/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
12/6/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Virgil
12/7/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
12/7/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Virgil
12/8/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
12/9/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Virgil
12/9/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
12/9/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Virgil
12/9/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
12/9/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
12/9/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Virgil
12/9/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
12/9/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Virgil
12/9/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
12/9/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Virgil
12/9/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
12/10/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Virgil
12/10/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
12/4/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Virgil
12/5/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
12/5/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Virgil
11/30/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Virgil
11/25/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Graham Cooper
11/25/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Virgil
11/25/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
ross.finlayson@gmail.com
11/25/12
Read Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Virgil

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© Drexel University 1994-2014. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.