On Dec 28, 8:14 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > It not obvious to me, what you call parameter-free. (And you need not > explain it, because I am not interested in your interpretation.) > Regards, WM
If you are not interested in my interpretation of parameter fee definability (which is standard by the way) then why you answered to my question by saying "Here is a parameter free enumeration...", you must not attempt to answer a question of others before you understand what others meant by their question. When I asked my question I of course meant my interpretation of parameter free definability, and actually I mentioned that explicitly, I of course didn't mean some alternative explanation existing in your head. To me it was better if you didn't answer my question, or at least say that the enumeration you've mentioned to be just some enumeration but to go and say it is parameter free and in response to my question about having a parameter free definable bijection (in my sense of course since I'm the one who is asking) is simply an act of non respect to the one who asked the question, it is rude to do so.
By the way you said it is not obvious to you what I meant by parameter free definable, while this is just the basics of definability of sets and it is WELL known, this ignorance on your side that you've admitted (which is good really) only reflects that you have little information on those subjects. It was expected from one who aims to refute Cantor to be more informed. It is expected from one who say that THOUSANDS of mathematicians for a whole of a century were acting fools and spreading nonsense to be someone who is well informed on such issues, but Since you are obviously ignorant why go discuss matters as if you are well informed? I think it is obvious now who is the acting fool and spreading nonsense.