Date: Nov 26, 2012 2:22 AM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
In article

<be566287-1de6-426b-a9d8-420bb9279bd6@n2g2000pbp.googlegroups.com>,

"Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> wrote:

> EF is simple and it's defined simply as a function, not-a-real-

> function, standardly modeled by real functions. Dirac's delta and

> Heaviside's are as so defined, as functions, not-real-functions,

> standardly modeled by real functions. And, the definition of function

> itself, here is modern and reflects over time the development of the

> definition of what is a mathematical function. Then, in actually

> extending the definition of what are the real numbers, in A theory, it

> is directly defined, and applied.

>

> There are hundreds of essays on it here.

Then give a reference to some of them, preferably by someone other than

yourself.

In particular we need a mathematically satisfactorily definition of your

alleged EF, again preferably by someone other than yourself, which will

take it out of the realm of mythology.

--