In article <4730862e-a105-41da-b5f9-00ba085781b4@vy11g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > We've drifted somewhat afield from Cantor's first proof in details and > here with regards to "A function surjects the rationals onto the > irrationals"
Which Cantor's two proofs established not be done.
> and "EF as a function has different results than any > other in Cantor's first (and the antidiagonal argument)".
Your EF isn't a function, at least none of the versions you have ever posted here have been.
If you have a version of your EF that you think actualy IS a fuction why don't you give us a precise definition of it here? --
