Re: countability of reals
From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (spamtrap_at_library.lspace.org.invalid)
Date: 01/11/05
- Next message: Emil Vatai: "Re: abundance of irrationals"
- Previous message: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz: "Re: On Hardy's essay: "A mathematician's apology""
- In reply to: mueckenh_at_rz.fh-augsburg.de: "Re: countability of reals"
- Next in thread: Tonico: "Re: countability of reals"
- Reply: Tonico: "Re: countability of reals"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: Tue, 11 Jan 2005 10:36:43 -0500
In <1105394656.866760.289360@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com>, on
01/10/2005
at 02:04 PM, mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de said:
>The same as Cantor does with his first (1873) and with his second
>(1891) proof.
No. Cantor did not define an algorithm.
>It does. If not, then continue.
There is no "continue"; you defined what you defined.
-- Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz, SysProg and JOAT <http://patriot.net/~shmuel> Unsolicited bulk E-mail subject to legal action. I reserve the right to publicly post or ridicule any abusive E-mail. Reply to domain Patriot dot net user shmuel+news to contact me. Do not reply to spamtrap@library.lspace.org
- Next message: Emil Vatai: "Re: abundance of irrationals"
- Previous message: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz: "Re: On Hardy's essay: "A mathematician's apology""
- In reply to: mueckenh_at_rz.fh-augsburg.de: "Re: countability of reals"
- Next in thread: Tonico: "Re: countability of reals"
- Reply: Tonico: "Re: countability of reals"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|
