Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?
From: Dave Seaman (dseaman_at_no.such.host)
Date: 11/29/04
- Next message: David C. Ullrich: "Re: Derivation Of The Spectrum Due To f(t).d(t - T)?????"
- Previous message: David C. Ullrich: "Re: Derivation Of The Spectrum Due To f(t).d(t - T)?????"
- In reply to: Brian Chandler: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Next in thread: Han de Bruijn: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Mon, 29 Nov 2004 13:19:58 +0000 (UTC)
On 28 Nov 2004 23:39:53 -0800, Brian Chandler wrote:
> fishfry <BLOCKSPAMfishfry@your-mailbox.com> wrote in message news:<BLOCKSPAMfishfry-331258.23244127112004@netnews.comcast.net>...
>> In article <3c6b9c1e.0411272122.2449a629@posting.google.com>,
>> raf@tiki-lounge.com (Ross A. Finlayson) wrote:
>>
>> > Hi Bob, if that is your real name,
>>
>> It's not. Bob is a palindrome of his real name.
> Objection. "Palindrome" is a unary property: X is or is not a
> palindrome - it can't be a palindrome "of" something. I think you
> meant to say "anagram".
Unless you are a fan of Monty Python's Flying Circus, in which case you
are allowed to say things like, "'Bolton' is a palindrome of 'Notlob'."
-- Dave Seaman Judge Yohn's mistakes revealed in Mumia Abu-Jamal ruling. <http://www.commoncouragepress.com/index.cfm?action=book&bookid=228>
- Next message: David C. Ullrich: "Re: Derivation Of The Spectrum Due To f(t).d(t - T)?????"
- Previous message: David C. Ullrich: "Re: Derivation Of The Spectrum Due To f(t).d(t - T)?????"
- In reply to: Brian Chandler: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Next in thread: Han de Bruijn: "Re: Cantor's diagonal proof wrong?"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
