Date: Nov 25, 2012 4:53 PM
Author: Graham Cooper
Subject: Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
On Nov 26, 7:40 am, "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlay...@gmail.com>

wrote:

> 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.

>

Virgil could pass for a mathematician. He doesn't use deceit to win

points like most Cantorians, he'll try to put forward what he believes

is the truth, that there are MORE THAN 1,2,3...INFINITY points

between any 2 points.

It's just that his (MAINSTREAM) stance is imaginary and pieced

together which forces him to argue from the hip, and duck and weave

like they all do!

Herc

--

S: if stops(S) gosub S

G. GREENE: this proves stops() must be un-computable!

SCI.LOGIC