Date: Nov 28, 2012 1:54 AM
Subject: Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
On Nov 27, 9:45 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> In article
> "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlay...@gmail.com> wrote:
> > > Your EF is, at least as so far presented, of no mathematical interest or
> > > impotance whatsoever.
> > > --
> > As a function, it has particular results in the framework of results
> > on uncountability of the reals, different than any other.
> Such results are more peculiar than particular, and are certainly in no
> way useful either to issues of cardinality of the reals nor any part of
> standard real analysis.
> > And, it's
> > simply and standardly modeled by real functions.
> Whatever of it is at all useful can be better achieved without it.
> > That includes your quaint take on it.
> My "quaint take" is that there is nothing mathematically useful cpable
> of being done with it that cannot better be done without it.
> And Ross has certainly presented no mathematically sound evidences to
> the contrary.
> Nor can he!
That is simple dispute.
No, deaf dumb blind monkey, it is what it is.
It is what it is.
What it is.