Re: Well Ordering the Reals

From: David Kastrup <dak@xxxxxxx>
Date: Wed, 02 Nov 2005 00:16:16 +0100

Robert Low <mtx014@xxxxxxxxxxxxxx> writes:

> Tony Orlow wrote:
>> So, you choose to participate in a conversation in total ignorance
>> of the subject matter, deliberately? Screw you, loser. I'll waste
>> no more time on you then.
>
> And they say Usenet is an irony-free zone.

Whoever "they" are, they are just as out of touch with reality as
Tony.

--
David Kastrup, Kriemhildstr. 15, 44793 Bochum
.

References:
- Re: Well Ordering the Reals
  - From: Daryl McCullough
- Re: Well Ordering the Reals
  - From: Russell
- Re: Well Ordering the Reals
  - From: Virgil
- Re: Well Ordering the Reals
  - From: Tony Orlow

Prev by Date: Re: Well Ordering the Reals
Next by Date: Re: Well Ordering the Reals
Previous by thread: Re: Well Ordering the Reals
Next by thread: Re: Well Ordering the Reals
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread

Relevant Pages

Re: ** says: Definition: sum{i in N} i = 0
... Tony Orlow wrote: ... > By the way, the result is 1, but that doesn't matter so much. ... whether 0 is or is not considered to be a member of N. ... But the second equal sign is valid regardless of whether 0 is in N. ...
(sci.math)
Re: Distinct linear orderings on Z
... Wolf Kirchmeir said: ... > Tony Orlow (aeo6) wrote: ... Does it matter? ...
(sci.math)
Re: Well Ordering the Reals
... Tony Orlow wrote: ... Screw you, loser. ... I'll waste no more time on you ...
(sci.math)
Re: An uncountable countable set
... Tony Orlow wrote: ... Okay, good, so we're in general accord on the matter. ...
(sci.math)