Re: non-Proof that the set of Real Numbers doesn't exist was Re: Repaired: (sketch of a) Proof that the set of Real Num

From: Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz (spamtrap_at_library.lspace.org.invalid)
Date: 01/19/05 

Date: Tue, 18 Jan 2005 20:35:58 -0500

In <cshv3k$a5$1@gander.coarse.univie.ac.at>, on 01/18/2005
   at 04:22 AM, piotr5@unet.univie.ac.at (Piotr Sawuk) said:

>So, instead of repeating the same argument over and over again, maybe
>your help would be more valuable to me if you actually would prove
>anything concerning my proof, don't you think?

What proof? Every time someone shows you the error in one purported
proof, you show another. It is you that is being repetitive; each
rebuttal is unique.

When each attempt at a proof fails, what does that suggest? 

-- 
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
Quantcast