Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: Robert Kolker <nowhere@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 24 May 2005 16:51:33 -0400
Tony Orlow (aeo6) wrote:
That's all very well and good, if you specify f anf g and figure those functions into your comparison. It's a mistake to ignore them.
Are you capable of following a proof? Even a three line proof?
Bob Kolker
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: aeo6
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- References:
- Cantor and the binary tree
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: Robert Kolker
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: Robin Chapman
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: Ron Sperber
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: aeo6
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: Robert Kolker
- Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- From: aeo6
- Cantor and the binary tree
- Prev by Date: absolute neighborhood retract??
- Next by Date: Re: Cantor's Theory sucks
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- Next by thread: Re: Cantor and the binary tree
- Index(es):
