Date: Nov 25, 2012 4:40 PM
Author: ross.finlayson@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS

On Nov 25, 12:53 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> In article
> <8e72f34b-4acb-4e8d-9797-f3b217e4e...@i7g2000pbf.googlegroups.com>,
>  "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>

> > So, we know from modern particle physics that the particle, is both
> > particle, and wave.

>
> What we do know is that those things we sometimes regard as being
> small-and-particle-like things have some behaviors that are wave-like.
>
> What those "things"REALLY are, we do not know.
>
> And most of the time, don't much care, as long as our descriptions of
> how we expect them to behave match our observations of how they do
> behave!
> --



Well that's simple, you're not a conscientious mathematician, who
cares.

Heh, you describe exactly the fallacy of argumentum ad ignorantium.

What those things REALLY are, we care. And, you don't here offer
anything about it.

Quit trodding on my coat-tails and get off it. And: get a job, get
off my lawn, and mow it, you hen-pecking, busybody, biddy.

Matter: particle and wave: at least. And, the physics of particles
is the closest thing there is to physically model the behavior of
numbers, in the real: on the metal.

Thanks, I understand that's quite high level and abstract thinking.
Now go print yourself a certificate of merit.

Regards,

Ross Finlayson