Re: Cardinality question
- From: Eckard Blumschein <blumschein@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 08 Apr 2005 14:53:49 +0200
On 4/8/2005 12:58 PM, Torkel Franzen wrote:
> of course no sensible person will rant and rave about how horrible
> something is just because it's not relevant to his personal concerns.
Well, the reason for me to successfully deal with the matter was not
primarily related to Cantor. I got aware that any measurement is
resticted to past time. Therefore I developed a fully equivalent but
irredundant analysis in IR+ instead of IR. It is even less affected by
set theoretic flaws but I got aware of the Cantor's fundamental mistake
and found no way to justify it. Now, I hope for and end to the quarrels.
Eckard
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cardinality question
- From: Torkel Franzen
- Re: Cardinality question
- References:
- Cardinality question
- From: Bart Killam
- Re: Cardinality question
- From: Larry Hammick
- Re: Cardinality question
- From: Eckard Blumschein
- Re: Cardinality question
- From: fishfry
- Re: Cardinality question
- From: Larry Hammick
- Re: Cardinality question
- From: David C . Ullrich
- Re: Cardinality question
- From: Torkel Franzen
- Cardinality question
- Prev by Date: Re: Cardinality question
- Next by Date: Can anyone help?
- Previous by thread: Re: Cardinality question
- Next by thread: Re: Cardinality question
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|