Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Matheology � 263
Replies: 57   Last Post: May 17, 2013 8:52 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Graham Cooper Posts: 4,495 Registered: 5/20/10
Re: Matheology § 263
Posted: May 16, 2013 8:47 PM

On May 17, 10:35 am, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> In article
>  Graham Cooper <grahamcoop...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> > On May 17, 10:23 am, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > > In article
> > > 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.

Why would S change its value of 2eS

given f(2) but not f(100) ?

Herc

Date Subject Author
5/10/13 Virgil
5/13/13 Virgil
5/13/13 Graham Cooper
5/13/13 Virgil
5/13/13 Graham Cooper
5/13/13 Virgil
5/14/13 Graham Cooper
5/14/13 Virgil
5/14/13 Graham Cooper
5/14/13 Virgil
5/14/13 Graham Cooper
5/14/13 Virgil
5/14/13 Graham Cooper
5/14/13 Virgil
5/14/13 Graham Cooper
5/14/13 Virgil
5/15/13 Graham Cooper
5/15/13 Virgil
5/15/13 Graham Cooper
5/15/13 Virgil
5/15/13 Graham Cooper
5/15/13 Virgil
5/15/13 Graham Cooper
5/16/13 Virgil
5/16/13 Graham Cooper
5/16/13 Virgil
5/16/13 Graham Cooper
5/16/13 Virgil
5/16/13 Graham Cooper
5/16/13 Virgil
5/16/13 Graham Cooper
5/16/13 Virgil
5/16/13 Graham Cooper
5/16/13 Virgil
5/16/13 Graham Cooper
5/16/13 Virgil
5/16/13 Graham Cooper
5/16/13 Scott Berg
5/16/13 Virgil
5/16/13 Graham Cooper
5/16/13 Virgil
5/16/13 Graham Cooper
5/16/13 Virgil
5/16/13 Virgil
5/16/13 Graham Cooper
5/17/13 Virgil
5/17/13 Graham Cooper
5/17/13 Virgil
5/17/13 Graham Cooper
5/17/13 Virgil
5/17/13 Graham Cooper
5/17/13 Virgil
5/17/13 Graham Cooper
5/14/13 Graham Cooper
5/14/13 Virgil