Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Virgil <virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Tue, 06 Feb 2007 13:35:56 -0700
In article <1170758154.230154.55880@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
On 6 Feb., 11:22, Franziska Neugebauer <Franziska-
Neugeba...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
mueck...@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:
Franziska Neugebauer wrote:[...]
The simplest reason is that omega - n = omega for all n in N.
Where did you get that from? Reference? EB?
You could even figure it out by yourself.
I cannot find any reference. Perhaps, there is none.
F. N.
--
xyz
Already Cantor knew it, but I am too lazy to look for the reference.
Read his papers, then you will encounter it.
Regards, WM
It is, in any case, irrelevant as a justification for what WM claimed.
.
- References:
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Franziska Neugebauer
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Franziska Neugebauer
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: Franziska Neugebauer
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor Confusion
- Prev by Date: Re: Bourbaki?
- Next by Date: Re: CRC Repeat Rate
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Next by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|