An uncountable countable set
in [Math]
|
Prev: integral problem
Next: Prime numbers
From: Lester Zick on 28 Oct 2006 14:55 On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 21:04:07 -0400, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >MoeBlee wrote: >> Lester Zick wrote: >>> Ah, Moe, truth is often a nuisance. >> >> Then you're as much of a nuisance as is a cool breeze on a sunny spring >> day, as a cleansing and quenching rain that ends a drought, as a >> magnificent symphony orchestra heard in an amphitheatre of impeccable >> acoustics. >> >> Moe Blee >> > >As a kitty cat on your lap, on a chilly night... :) > >Lesterrrrrrrr...... > > >Actually, I named my last cat Lester, before I met Lester here online. I >had to scrape his pieces off the road.... LOL, Tony! Did you try to put the set of pieces back together? ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 28 Oct 2006 14:56 On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 20:55:08 -0400, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >Lester Zick wrote: >> On 27 Oct 2006 11:01:57 -0700, "MoeBlee" <jazzmobe(a)hotmail.com> wrote: >> >>> Lester Zick wrote: >>>> Ah, Brian, ever the amanuensis. >>> Zick, ever the nuisance. >> >> Ah, Moe, truth is often a nuisance. >> >> ~v~~ > >Stop confusing me with facts, Lester. >Not and/or the inverse of not the notness of it all. >I just don't get it. Meow! ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 28 Oct 2006 14:58 On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 21:23:44 -0600, Virgil <virgil(a)comcast.net> wrote: >In article <4542aa5c(a)news2.lightlink.com>, > Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: > > >> Stop confusing me with facts, Lester. > >TO is easily confused by facts. > >But Lester rarely provides any. > >A marriage made in Heaven? Or Hell? You're too fickle for me, Virgil. Aatu calls you "pathetic" for your dogged faithfulness to me so you just jump over to Tony instead. ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 28 Oct 2006 14:59 On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 20:55:54 -0400, Tony Orlow <tony(a)lightlink.com> wrote: >Lester Zick wrote: >> On 27 Oct 2006 11:38:10 -0700, imaginatorium(a)despammed.com wrote: >> >>> David Marcus wrote: >>>> Lester Zick wrote: >>>>> On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 16:30:04 +0000 (UTC), stephen(a)nomail.com wrote: >>>>>> A very simple example is that there exists a smallest positive >>>>>> non-zero integer, but there does not exist a smallest positive >>>>>> non-zero real. >>>>> So non zero integers are not real? >>>> That's a pretty impressive leap of illogic. >>> Gosh, you obviously haven't seen Lester when he's in full swing. (Have >>> _you_ searched sci.math for "Zick transcendental"?) >> >> No but obviously you have, Brian. >> >> ~v~~ > >I think Brian may have "been in the swing" at the time. Dunno. Or maybe under it. >01oo ~v~~
From: Lester Zick on 28 Oct 2006 15:00
On 28 Oct 2006 11:03:49 -0700, imaginatorium(a)despammed.com wrote: > >Lester Zick wrote: >> On 27 Oct 2006 11:38:10 -0700, imaginatorium(a)despammed.com wrote: >> >> > >> >David Marcus wrote: >> >> Lester Zick wrote: >> >> > On Fri, 27 Oct 2006 16:30:04 +0000 (UTC), stephen(a)nomail.com wrote: >> >> > >A very simple example is that there exists a smallest positive >> >> > >non-zero integer, but there does not exist a smallest positive >> >> > >non-zero real. >> >> > >> >> > So non zero integers are not real? >> >> >> >> That's a pretty impressive leap of illogic. >> > >> >Gosh, you obviously haven't seen Lester when he's in full swing. (Have >> >_you_ searched sci.math for "Zick transcendental"?) >> >> Hell, Brian, on some of my better days I can even prove the pope's >> catholic. > >Lester, I'm glad to see age is not wearying you, but isn't this the >second time you've replied to the same message? May just be, Brian. Love to read my own writing. So clever. ~v~~ |