On May 17, 10:35 am, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > In article > <f00bc4a1-b109-45d2-9048-f359d2f2d...@a10g2000pbr.googlegroups.com>, > Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> 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? >
Yes, every post you make errors regarding Cantor's formula.
It's a real maze to get one sensible comment out of you.
You infer all sorts of facts given the example f then say nothing can be inferred at all from a partial f.