Date: Nov 30, 2012 11:16 AM Author: FredJeffries@gmail.com Subject: Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS On Nov 26, 9:19 pm, "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...

> at least hundreds of results

>

> http://mathforum.org/kb/message.jspa?messageID=7888348"Cantor-

> Finlayson theory"

>

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

> "Equivalency Function"

>

> http://groups.google.com/group/sci.math/msg/ccb0941dc3421afdperhaps

> the first mention

>

> Do you know the old saw about "assume"?

>

> 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.

You've had this function for 13 years now and you STILL can't

calculate the area of a triangle with it.