Date: Nov 28, 2012 2:07 AM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
In article

<9a7d2fa5-933a-4669-9266-5627d204ecc1@kt16g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,

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

> On Nov 27, 9:45 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:

> > In article

> > <fb43d5d1-f3ad-4294-9641-d65ebfe2c...@y5g2000pbi.googlegroups.com>,

> > "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.

>

> Regards,

>

> Ross Finlayson

One notes the total absence of any mathematical content to Ross' posting.

--