
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 > > <8e72f34b4acb4e8d9797f3b217e4e...@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 > > smallandparticlelike things have some behaviors that are wavelike. > > > 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 uncomputable! SCI.LOGIC

