Date: Dec 10, 2012 7:23 AM
Subject: Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
On Dec 9, 11:42 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> In article
> "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlay...@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?
thank you -eternity +eternity=now-yes+yes