Prev: No, dumbass, nobody is going to give you "one digit position of any real
Next: CAPACITORS VIOLATING THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS
From: George Greene on 4 Jun 2010 23:57
On Jun 4, 8:12 pm, Rick Decker <rdec...(a)hamilton.edu> wrote:
> Err, no, unless you're using a non-standard definition of
> "uncountable." In fact, the set {1, 2, 3, ... } is
> countable, in the agreed-upon definition of the term.


Err, no; in case you hadn't noticed, Herc does NOT agree.
Moreover, he is even explaining WHY he doesn't agree.
 | 
Pages: 1
Prev: No, dumbass, nobody is going to give you "one digit position of any real
Next: CAPACITORS VIOLATING THE SECOND LAW OF THERMODYNAMICS