In article <email@example.com>, Graham Cooper <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On May 17, 10:23 am, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > In article > > <2e280e67-4adf-45b4-a320-330324f50...@ks18g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, > > Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.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. > > > > > > Why did you say 2 & 3 were in S?
I did not say that! I said that for the particular partial function you gave they would have been in at least one such S but I also noted that there could be many other S's in which neither need appear.
Do you ever bother to read what I post before making a fool of yourself by misinterpreting it? --