|
|
Re: Cantor's first proof in DETAILS
Posted:
Nov 25, 2012 4:53 PM
|
|
On Nov 26, 7:40 am, "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlay...@gmail.com>
wrote:
> On Nov 25, 12:53 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
>
> > In article
> > <8e72f34b-4acb-4e8d-9797-f3b217e4e...@i7g2000pbf.googlegroups.com>,
> > "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlay...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> > > So, we know from modern particle physics that the particle, is both
> > > particle, and wave.
>
> > What we do know is that those things we sometimes regard as being
> > small-and-particle-like things have some behaviors that are wave-like.
>
> > What those "things"REALLY are, we do not know.
>
> > And most of the time, don't much care, as long as our descriptions of
> > how we expect them to behave match our observations of how they do
> > behave!
> >
>
> Well that's simple, you're not a conscientious mathematician, who
> cares.
>
Virgil could pass for a mathematician. He doesn't use deceit to win
points like most Cantorians, he'll try to put forward what he believes
is the truth, that there are MORE THAN 1,2,3...INFINITY points
between any 2 points.
It's just that his (MAINSTREAM) stance is imaginary and pieced
together which forces him to argue from the hip, and duck and weave
like they all do!
Herc
--
S: if stops(S) gosub S
G. GREENE: this proves stops() must be un-computable!
SCI.LOGIC
|
|
