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

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: 8,833
Registered: 1/6/11
Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Posted: Dec 7, 2012 12:24 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

In article
<97829085-9b08-479c-b693-fde704b4ffbf@nl3g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
"Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:

> On Dec 5, 9:05 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <5312c40d-7490-4838-b49c-573a9f2e1...@i2g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,
> >  "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >

> > > On Dec 4, 1:15 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <42cabcca-089d-456f-837a-c1d789bda...@jj5g2000pbc.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlay...@gmail.com> wrote:

> >
> > > > > And Heaviside's step is continuous,
> > > > > now. For that matter it's a real function.

> >
> > > > I already said that the step function is a real function, I only
> > > > objected to your claim that it was a continuous function.
> > > > --

> >
> > > Heh, then you said it wasn't, quite vociferously
> >
> > I objected to it being called continuous. possibly vociferously, but
> > your claim that it was continuous deserved vociferous objection.
> >
> > :  you were wrong
> >  Don't you wish!
> >
> > , and
> >

> > > within the course of a few posts wrote totally opposite things.  Your
> > > memory fails and that's generous, not to mention you appear unable to
> > > read three posts back.

> >
> > > And everybody sees that.
> >
> > > Then as noted Heaviside's step, a real function, can be simply drawn
> > > classically: without lifting the pencil.

> >
> > Not outside of Rossiana.
> >
> > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaviside_step_function
> > The Heaviside step function, or the unit step function, usually denoted
> > by H (but sometimes u or ?), is a discontinuous function whose value is
> > zero for negative argument and one for positive argument. It seldom
> > matters what value is used for H(0), since H is mostly used as a
> > distribution.
> >
> >   It's continuous that way.
> >
> > Not according to Wiki, whom EVERONE here, except possibly WM, trusts far
> > more than they trust Ross.
> >
> > See that phase  "discontinuous function"?
> >
> > Or maybe your as blind as you are thick.
> > --

>
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaviside_step_function

From wiki:
The Heaviside step function, or the unit step function, usually denoted
by H (but sometimes u or ?), is a DISCONTINUOUS function whose value is
zero for negative argument and one for positive argument. It seldom
matters what value is used for H(0), since H is mostly used as a
distribution. Some common choices can be seen below.
>
> * ''H''(0) can take the values zero through one as a removal of the
> point discontinuity, preserving and connecting the neighborhoods of
> the limits from the right and left, and preserving rotational symmetry
> about (0,½).


Except that the value of the Heaviside step function AT zero cannot be
chosen so as to make its limit as x increases towards zero though
negative values become equal to the limit as x decreases through
positive values towards zero, which would be necessary to make the
function continuous at zero according to every standard definition of
continuity.

One wonders whether Ross knows what continuity reall is all about.
>
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Heaviside
>
> Looks good to me.


Try getting your eyes tested, and if that doesn't clear things up, get
your brain tested.
--




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.