Date: Nov 26, 2012 12:37 AM
Subject: Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
"Ross A. Finlayson" <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Nov 25, 6:16 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <bdf4255c-7c27-4c2b-a78c-62a2e38ec...@v6g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlay...@gmail.com> 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.
Was not meant to be. Those who think that what haas gone before must
always be replaced by new things, as Ross seems to, seams not to
understand that culture, even in mathematics, advances by accumulation.
The mathematics of Euclid and Pythogoras is still of value even today,
and those, like Ross, who would throw it out with their bathwater
because it is not new, will lose it all.
> Virgil's opinion on original thought: "garbage". He claims to know
> much about it.
New mathematics is fine as long as one does not have to throw out a
couple of millennia of old math to use it.
> Get out of me and Cantor's way.
I agree with Cantor's mathematics but have yet to see anything by Ross
that qualifies as math, old or new.
> EF, the equivalency function, is like no other function
Unlike actual functions, it is nonsense, not really a function at all.
I defy Ross to give his alleged "equivalency function" a mathematically
acceptable definition of his alleged "equivalency function"here which
demonstrates that it has either any equivalency or any functionality.
In the past he has never done more with it that a lot of bizarre hand
waving and promises that it will square the circle and duplicate the