Date: Dec 10, 2012 2:42 AM
Subject: Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
"Ross A. Finlayson" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> We've drifted somewhat afield from Cantor's first proof in details and
> here with regards to "A function surjects the rationals onto the
Which Cantor's two proofs established not be done.
> and "EF as a function has different results than any
> other in Cantor's first (and the antidiagonal argument)".
Your EF isn't a function, at least none of the versions you have ever
posted here have been.
If you have a version of your EF that you think actualy IS a fuction why
don't you give us a precise definition of it here?