Re: Cantor Confusion

From: Virgil <virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
Date: Fri, 09 Mar 2007 13:00:19 -0700

In article <5ug2v215gvfu0rblhvg6jdff7092nr81f2@xxxxxxx>,
G. Frege <nomail@invalid> wrote:

On 9 Mar 2007 03:10:56 -0800, mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx wrote:

As you do not *define* the cross section of the infinite tree,
your argument is empty.

There is no need to define it. [...]

A very good example of Mückenmathics! :-)

I thought it was Mückenmatics.
.

References:
- Re: Cantor Confusion
  - From: *** T. Winter
- Re: Cantor Confusion
  - From: mueckenh
- Re: Cantor Confusion
  - From: G . Frege

Prev by Date: Re: Cantor Confusion
Next by Date: Re: How to solve the probability density of z=ax+w?
Previous by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
Next by thread: Re: Cantor Confusion
Index(es):
- Date
- Thread