Re: Cantor For Dummies ...
- From: "Tonico" <Tonicopm@xxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 30 Mar 2007 04:17:09 -0700
On Mar 29, 9:37 pm, "georgie" <geo_c...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
On Mar 29, 1:31 pm, "Tonico" <Tonic...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:*******************************************
Hehe...sorry about that, Ride: it seems like you've met one of our
resident anticantorian cranks.
So you start by personal attacks. Doing exactly what you
accuse others of doing. I noticed that you have no real
value to add.
Anything that could be added, though you were utterly unable to grasp,
was done in the good&old thread by Mueckheim et al. about "Cantor's
Confussion", so I am NOT starting anything.
There, you and other cranks were explained once, twice, thrice and
MORE times about your basic mistakes and your lack of mathematical
education...no use: as good cranks, you wouldn't learn.
Regards
Tonio
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Cantor For Dummies ...
- From: georgie
- Re: Cantor For Dummies ...
- References:
- Re: Cantor For Dummies ...
- From: georgie
- Re: Cantor For Dummies ...
- From: riderofgiraffes
- Re: Cantor For Dummies ...
- From: Tonico
- Re: Cantor For Dummies ...
- From: georgie
- Re: Cantor For Dummies ...
- Prev by Date: Re: A physicist, and engineer and a economist are all trapped on an island...
- Next by Date: Re: in fact zero _is_ neither positive nor negative. THIS STATEMENT IS NOT TRUE
- Previous by thread: Re: Cantor For Dummies ...
- Next by thread: Re: Cantor For Dummies ...
- Index(es):