Date: Nov 27, 2012 2:33 AM
Subject: Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
"Ross A. Finlayson" <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Nov 26, 12:03 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <ba2d403e-154a-46d2-9fc9-6e5ae92ed...@vy11g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > 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.
> > Did you?
> > I certainly do not ever recall seeing your alleged EF adequately
> > presented, and see now no references to where one might see it
> > presented, whether adequately or not.
> > And if you still will not provide a reference to it, a url, or something
> > through which anyone can access it to see it for him or her self, it is
> > as if no such thing ever existed.
> > Which in the absence of any evidence to the contrary, I will continue to
> > assume.
> > --
> at least hundreds of results
Not one of which posts contains an original definition of what the
alleged "equivalency function" actually is, only a lot of crap by Ross
about how it is the greatest things since sliced bread.
I find a citation from r 9/22/99 In which Ross states, what may well be
Ross' original "definition" of his alleged "Equivalency Function" which
as any mathematician can plainly see is not a function at all, and is
only equivalent to nonsense::
" Consider the function
f(x, d)= x/d
for x and d in N. The domain of x is N from zero to d and the domain of
d is N as d goes to
infinity, d being greater than or equal to one.
I term this the Equivalency Function, and note it EF(x,d), also EF(x),
assuming d goes to
http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/af29323d694cf89e 1999 -
> My friends, or as I would so address you, the definition of EF is
> written in some few lines: constantly monotonically increasing from
> zero through one.
Anyone who would call that mess a function, when it is either two
separate functions or infinitely many depending on which part of the
"definition" one is reading, is no mathematician.
Ant the only thing it demonstrates is Ross' total inability to think
I do not find any area of mathematics which would not be improved by its
> Ross Finlayson