Date: Nov 28, 2012 2:21 AM
Author: ross.finlayson@gmail.com
Subject: Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS

On Nov 27, 11:07 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> In article
> <9a7d2fa5-933a-4669-9266-5627d204e...@kt16g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
>  "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlay...@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.
> --


No, Hancher, EF: it is what it is.

It is what it is.

So, go back to licking Muckenheim, here you just got beat.

And next time you have a gross overgeneralization that is clearly
fatuous, well, nobody'll be surprised. In fact it's somewhat expected
as the mode.

One notes that for what all you say there's nothing in it, you won't
shut up about it.

Then, a note for Cantor, you say you agree with him, does that include
of an Absolute Infinity? Or, do you just agree with whatever will be
least controversial mathematically to spew your spiteful attacks? We
love Cantor, for opening mathematics to more infinity, and he's not
done yet.

Note mathematical content.

Regards,

Ross Finlayson