Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: Franziska Neugebauer <Franziska-Neugebauer@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Sat, 21 Jul 2007 15:24:36 +0200
WM wrote:
I saod an I say that a function is not a function without having
domain and range. If understand something else then it is your
problem. Full stop.
My definition of "countable" as finite or in bijection with N is the
usual one and does not need choice. Full stop.
I did not switch. Potentially infinite is "always finite but without
bound". Full stop.
And this has been definitely my last statement to this topic.
Period.
F. N.
--
xyz
.
- References:
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: Cronholm144
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: tommy1729
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: WM
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: WM
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: WM
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: WM
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: WM
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: WM
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- Prev by Date: Re: representing polynomial range values as sums of 2 squares
- Next by Date: Re: OT -- a "degree mill" fiasco
- Previous by thread: Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- Next by thread: Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- Index(es):