In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 12 Dez., 12:07, Alan Smaill <sma...@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> writes: > > > 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. > > > > And the problem is passed over in silence by WM. > > No
The problem is : In order to define the product of a real number times a transfinite, the definition must hold for all reals and all transfinites.
To which WM makes no response because he realizes that it is true, and he had no answer for it. --