In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 11 Dez., 12:54, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz > <spamt...@library.lspace.org.invalid> wrote: > > In <virgil-2FC1D7.13530210122...@BIGNEWS.USENETMONSTER.COM>, on > > 12/10/2012 > > at 01:53 PM, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> said: > > > > >In order to define the product of a real number times a > > >transfinite, the definition must hold for all reals and all > > >transfinites. > > > > There's a more fundamental problem; she/he/it is conflating cardinals, > > Cantor was a male. So "he" would be appropriate.
It is hardly clear from the snipped quote from my post that he/she/it necessarily refers to Cantor. > > By the way: Have you understood my convergence-proof of first semester > level?
Every "proof" of yours that I remember has been flawed.