Date: Nov 26, 2012 10:18 AM
Author: ross.finlayson@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
On Nov 25, 11:22 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:

> In article

> <be566287-1de6-426b-a9d8-420bb9279...@n2g2000pbp.googlegroups.com>,

> "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlay...@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.

> --

I wrote all that.

Regards,

Ross Finlayson