Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Virgil <virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 02 Oct 2006 21:16:39 -0600
In article <j8iUg.28330$8_5.24730@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Poker Joker" <Poker@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Virgil" <virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:virgil-B233B9.12324230092006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
In article <93uTg.1860$3E2.1673@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
"Poker Joker" <Poker@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
"Virgil" <virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:virgil-4F0272.01064530092006@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
Is that is the best PJ can do? Personal attacks are the last refuge of
the incompetent.
That's been your ONLY attack.
I have, to the satisfaction of anyone competent in mathematics, repeated
other's proofs that, despite PJ's objections, no list of reals can
contain all reals.
The NG is hardly "anyone competent in mathematics" that's why
Virgil is so well accepted.
In addition to the NG, there are all those textbooks and reference works
that agree that the Cantor "diagonal" proof is valid.
Which is where I found those proofs that P.J. does not accept.
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Poker Joker
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- References:
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Poker Joker
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Virgil
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Poker Joker
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Virgil
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Poker Joker
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Virgil
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Poker Joker
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- Prev by Date: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Next by Date: Re: Partial derivatives don't give full picture
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Next by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|