Date: Nov 25, 2012 11:52 PM
Subject: Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS

On Nov 25, 6:16 pm, Virgil <> wrote:
> In article
> <>,
>  "Ross A. Finlayson" <> wrote:

> > No, the conscientious mathematician doesn't just adhere to and
> > elaborate the mundane, but here acknowledges there is more to
> > mathematics than we yet have, and strives for truth, here mathematical
> > truth, as it is.  As a follower of mathematics, Virgil is of the timid
> > sort, always using argument established by others, thus to lend
> > credence to his opinion regardless of his tactics, vis-a-vis,
> > establishing original thought, here of course in a framework of
> > mathematics.

> A great majority  of "original thought" is garbage, and must be filtered
> through what is already established in order separate out the dross.
> When one filters the dross out of Ross' "original thoughts" there is far
> to often nothing left at all.

> > The conscientious mathematician doesn't just curate and dust.
> But must curate and dust too!
> --

Huh, that's not very funny. There is no try, only, do.

Virgil's opinion on original thought: "garbage". He claims to know
much about it.

Get out of me and Cantor's way.

EF, the equivalency function, is like no other function, and as a
result of development around the modern foundations, sees Cantor's
results as establishing its uniqueness and that of its compositions
(as countable line segments). Its range is a line from zero to one.
Draw that.

So yes, for the conscientious mathematician, it could be no less than
meeting the requirements of mathematical rigor and here, evident truth
in the pure and practical utility in the applied. This mathematics,
as museum, is living. Muse on that.

And, particle/wave duality is observed in nature, already, with the
most precise of our physical instruments, and simply with readily
available materiel. Is your mind so closed that you can't draw the
obvious parallel between the best and most modern of our physics and a
natural continuum in our natural universe of naturally mathematical
objects? Others lack that failing. And yes, they find it
interesting, and reasonable. It's pretty simple, this development in
numbers, when I can explain the development to people of all stripes,
and I befriend people of all walks of life.

And, it doesn't care one whit any of our opinion: really, what is.
So, Hancher, you hot-air buffoon, come back with an advancement for
science, and get out of its way.

And warm regards,

Ross Finlayson