On Dec 9, 11:42 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > In article > <4730862e-a105-41da-b5f9-00ba08578...@vy11g2000pbb.googlegroups.com>, > "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? > --
