In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Graham Cooper <email@example.com> wrote:
> On May 17, 10:00 am, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > In article > > <9d1681d3-20a0-439e-bb2c-379c6f0ea...@qz2g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, > > Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > USE the given f! > > > > You did not give any f. > > > > Can you use Cantor's Definition of missing set > > on a Finite (sub) example or not?
No, as anyone with any sense should have been able to work out for himself.
In fact not even for an f undefined at only one argument, because any such f's value may still be defined at any one of the many still missing sets, which will then no longer be a missing set.
So one cannot tell which sets are not going to be used until one knows which sets which will be used.