Date: Nov 27, 2012 2:34 PM Author: Virgil Subject: Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS In article

<ff6de177-a8db-461e-9048-b054aae71ba6@ah9g2000pbd.googlegroups.com>,

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

> On Nov 26, 11:33 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:

> > In article

> > <b144a62b-11a5-4397-9c0d-ecd39e274...@6g2000pbh.googlegroups.com>,

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

> > > > --

> >

> > >http://mathforum.org/kb/search!execute.jspa?forumID=13&objID=f13&forc...

> > > rch=true&q=%22Equivalency+Function%22

> > > 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.

> >

> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/ccb0941dc3421afd

> >

> > 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

> > infinity."

> >

> > http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/af29323d694cf89e1999 -

> > "Equivalency Function"

> >

> >

> >

> > > 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

> > mathematically.

> >

> > I do not find any area of mathematics which would not be improved by its

> > total absence.

> >

> >

>

> I have a mathematics degree

I have three of them, so what?

Your EF is, at least as so far presented, of no mathematical interest or

impotance whatsoever.

--