```Date: Dec 29, 2012 10:13 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Simple Refutation of Cantor's Proof

In article <9da26dd2-5d29-4d3c-97a3-bd9bb79a2ba4@6g2000pbh.googlegroups.com>, camgirls@hush.com wrote:> On Dec 30, 9:22 am, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:> > > > NOTHING EVER *NEEDS* to be constructed, DUMBASS!> > > > YOU DON'T represent the function f(x)=2*x by> >> > > The derivative   f'(x)=2> >> > > The integral      f*(x)=x^2> >> > AN integral, but not THE integral.> >> >> > It HAS an integral!It has infinitely many different integrals, though any two of them differ only by a constant.> > It HAS a derivative.But it has only one derivative!> > Your imaginary textual froth you make up and call functions DO NOT!!> > AD(pos) = 6 IFF DIAG(pos) < 5> AD(pos) = 5 OTHERWISE> > What is the DERIVATIVE of that RUBBISH?Since it is not even a continuous function, what misleads you to suppose it needs to have a derivative?> > You CLAIM it is completed to INFINITY!> > W H A T  *  I S  *  T H E  *  I N T E G R A L  ?Since neither its domain nor its range includes any real intervals what misleads you to suppose that it has an integral?> > ANWER THE QUESTIONS VIRGILYour questions reveal either your abysmal ignorance of mathematics, or your stupidity, or  more likely both.> > OR STOP TRASHING ALL MY POSTS!I am trying to improve them, but you keep making them worse.--
```