Date: Dec 10, 2012 2:42 AM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS

In article 
<4730862e-a105-41da-b5f9-00ba085781b4@vy11g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>,
"Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlayson@gmail.com> 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
> irrationals"


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?
--