Matheology § 017

[WM]

Matheology § 017

Thesis XIII in Brouwers Dissertation (Appendix): "Over de grondslagen
der wiskunde" (Februari 1907, Dutch) simply reads: "De tweede
getalklasse van Cantor bestaat niet", translated: Cantors second
number class does not exist. {{That is an acceptable foundation of
acceptable mathematics.}}
http://www.archive.org/details/overdegrondslag00brougoog

He quickly discovered that his ideas on the foundations of mathematics
would not be readily accepted. {{His ideas would devastate
matheology.}}
http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Brouwer.html

Regards, WM

[Alan Smaill]

An excellent mathematician, and his work in logic
is respected today.

He put together a coherent view of the foundations of
mathematics. I have a reasonable idea of his position;
he did, for example, accept the existence of the natural numbers
as a completed totality.




> Regards, WM

--
Alan Smaill

[WM]

On 24 Mai, 16:30, Alan Smaill <sma...@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> writes:
> > Matheology § 017
>
> > Thesis XIII in Brouwers Dissertation (Appendix): "Over de grondslagen
> > der wiskunde" (Februari 1907, Dutch) simply reads: "De tweede
> > getalklasse van Cantor bestaat niet", translated: Cantors second
> > number class does not exist. {{That is an acceptable foundation of
> > acceptable mathematics.}}
> >http://www.archive.org/details/overdegrondslag00brougoog
>
> > He quickly discovered that his ideas on the foundations of mathematics
> > would not be readily accepted. {{His ideas would devastate
> > matheology.}}
> >http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Brouwer.html
>
> An excellent mathematician, and his work in logic
> is respected today.

Today!

Hilbert fired him from the board of Annalen der Mathematik, without
consent of Einstein (also on the board) and abusing the name of
Carathéodory (also on the board). An early case of matheological
fanatism. If you understand German you can read the whole story here
http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~mueckenh/KB/KB%20401-600.pdf
Der Krieg der Frösche und der Mäuse (The war of frogs and mice, as
Einstein called it).

Regards, WM

[Alan Smaill]

WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> writes:

> On 24 Mai, 16:30, Alan Smaill <sma...@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> writes:
>> > Matheology § 017
>>
>> > Thesis XIII in Brouwers Dissertation (Appendix): "Over de grondslagen
>> > der wiskunde" (Februari 1907, Dutch) simply reads: "De tweede
>> > getalklasse van Cantor bestaat niet", translated: Cantors second
>> > number class does not exist. {{That is an acceptable foundation of
>> > acceptable mathematics.}}
>> >http://www.archive.org/details/overdegrondslag00brougoog
>>
>> > He quickly discovered that his ideas on the foundations of mathematics
>> > would not be readily accepted. {{His ideas would devastate
>> > matheology.}}
>> >http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Brouwer.html
>>
>> An excellent mathematician, and his work in logic
>> is respected today.
>
> Today!

yes, today!
Personally, I live in today ...

[WM]

Not even today, unfortunately.

Brouwer's constructivism is claimed, by matheologians, to be a
possible, equally recognized alternative. That's wrong. If Brouwer is
right, then matheology is wrong. There is no possible coexistence such
that an intelligent being could choose between them.

At least after my proofs there is, for correct mathematics, no longer
the liberty of chosing this or that set of axioms. ZFC is in
contradiction with mathematics.

And already Brouwer did not mean to devise an "alternative", but he
knew, Cantor is wrong: "De tweede getalklasse van Cantor bestaat
niet".

Regards, WM

[Virgil]

In article
<8b19c8cd-2e61-4aae...@l17g2000vbj.googlegroups.com>,
WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> Matheology § 017


>
> Regards, WM

Lecture by the only professor of matheoogy snipped.
--

[Virgil]

In article
<dcd75e2b-e809-4ed3...@n16g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,

WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> On 24 Mai, 18:05, Alan Smaill <sma...@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> writes:
> > > On 24 Mai, 16:30, Alan Smaill <sma...@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > >> WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> writes:
> > >> > Matheology § 017
> >
> > >> > Thesis XIII in Brouwers Dissertation (Appendix): "Over de grondslagen
> > >> > der wiskunde" (Februari 1907, Dutch) simply reads: "De tweede
> > >> > getalklasse van Cantor bestaat niet", translated: Cantors second
> > >> > number class does not exist. {{That is an acceptable foundation of
> > >> > acceptable mathematics.}}
> > >> >http://www.archive.org/details/overdegrondslag00brougoog
> >
> > >> > He quickly discovered that his ideas on the foundations of mathematics
> > >> > would not be readily accepted. {{His ideas would devastate
> > >> > matheology.}}
> > >> >http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Brouwer.html
> >
> > >> An excellent mathematician, and his work in logic
> > >> is respected today.
> >
> > > Today!
> >
> > yes, today!
> > Personally, I live in today ...
>
> Not even today, unfortunately.

That Cantor's works are not accepted by WM is a measure of how poor a
mathematician WM is.
--

[FredJeffries]

On May 24, 9:26 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 24 Mai, 18:05, Alan Smaill <sma...@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> writes:
> > > On 24 Mai, 16:30, Alan Smaill <sma...@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> > >> WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> writes:
> > >> > Matheology § 017
>
> > >> > Thesis XIII in Brouwers Dissertation (Appendix): "Over de grondslagen
> > >> > der wiskunde" (Februari 1907, Dutch) simply reads: "De tweede
> > >> > getalklasse van Cantor bestaat niet", translated: Cantors second
> > >> > number class does not exist. {{That is an acceptable foundation of
> > >> > acceptable mathematics.}}
> > >> >http://www.archive.org/details/overdegrondslag00brougoog
>
> > >> > He quickly discovered that his ideas on the foundations of mathematics
> > >> > would not be readily accepted. {{His ideas would devastate
> > >> > matheology.}}
> > >> >http://www-history.mcs.st-andrews.ac.uk/Biographies/Brouwer.html
>
> > >> An excellent mathematician, and his work in logic
> > >> is respected today.
>
> > > Today!
>
> > yes, today!
> > Personally, I live in today ...
>
> Not even today, unfortunately.
>

> Brouwer'sconstructivism is claimed, by matheologians, to be a

> possible, equally recognized alternative. That's wrong. IfBrouweris
> right, then matheology is wrong. There is no possible coexistence such
> that an intelligent being could choose between them.
>
> At least after my proofs there is, for correct mathematics, no longer
> the liberty of chosing this or that set of axioms. ZFC is in
> contradiction with mathematics.
>

> And alreadyBrouwerdid not mean to devise an "alternative", but he

> knew, Cantor is wrong: "De tweede getalklasse van Cantor bestaat
> niet".
>

<quote>
The Brouwer-Hilbert debate
was unnecessary because both parties shared a common misconception:
that Brouwer’s intuitionism was a restriction of classical
mathematics.
But Godel showed in a short paper, published two years after his
epochmaking
incompleteness theorem of 1931, that it is actually an extension
of classical mathematics. At least, this is true for arithmetic (or
number
theory), but the less said about intuitionistic analysis the better.

In the light of Godel’s result, we can say that what Brouwer really
did was extend classical mathematics by the creation of two new
logical
operators: the constructive there exists and the constructive or,
stronger
than their classical counterparts. Unfortunately for clarity and
civility,
Godel’s paper did not receive the proper attention or interpretation,
and
the unseemly squabble dragged on.
</quote>

Ed Nelson, "Confessions of an Apostate Mathematician", p5
https://web.math.princeton.edu/~nelson/papers/rome.pdf

[David Bernier]

If we look at the sequence a_n = cos(n!), n >= 0, we get a
bounded sequence in [-1, 1]. So, this sequence has
a convergent sub-sequence. Or, there exists a D in [-1, 1]
such that for any epsilon>0, and any natural number K, there is
an 'm' with m > K such that: | a_m - D | < epsilon .

There's a mixture of "for all" and "there exists" quantifiers
there. How would a constructive Q meaning
Exists: ForAll: ForAll: Exists: P(variables)
based on the "Exists D" sentence appear, roughly? (refering to Q?)

David Bernier

[WM]

> Ed Nelson, "Confessions of an Apostate Mathematician", p5https://web.math.princeton.edu/~nelson/papers/rome.pdf- Zitierten Text ausblenden -


Here I do not agree with Ed Nelson. But it is more important to
emphasize this: Gödel's famous paper got much too much attention. It
is based on the existence of completed infinity implying the existence
of uncountable sets (cp. Matheology § 023
http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~mueckenh/KB/Matheology.pdf
). Therefore it is irrelevant to mathematics.

Regards, WM

[Virgil]

In article
<4e8b34ce-aca2-4e45...@6g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,

Given a choice, mathematicians would al prefer him to you.

> But it is more important to
> emphasize this: Gödel's famous paper got much too much attention.

That WM does not like it is the best recommendation it could earn!

As WM is irrlevant to mathematics.
--

[Alan Smaill]

David Bernier <davi...@videotron.ca> writes:

> On 06/09/2012 03:31 PM, FredJeffries wrote:
>> On May 24, 9:26 am, WM<mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>
>>> Brouwer'sconstructivism is claimed, by matheologians, to be a
>>> possible, equally recognized alternative. That's wrong. IfBrouweris
>>> right, then matheology is wrong. There is no possible coexistence such
>>> that an intelligent being could choose between them.
>>>
>>> At least after my proofs there is, for correct mathematics, no longer
>>> the liberty of chosing this or that set of axioms. ZFC is in
>>> contradiction with mathematics.
>>>
>>> And alreadyBrouwerdid not mean to devise an "alternative", but he
>>> knew, Cantor is wrong: "De tweede getalklasse van Cantor bestaat
>>> niet".
>>>
>> <quote>
>> The Brouwer-Hilbert debate
>> was unnecessary because both parties shared a common misconception:
>> that Brouwer’s intuitionism was a restriction of classical
>> mathematics.

In that any intuitionistic proof is also a classical proof,
presumably.

>> But Godel showed in a short paper, published two years after his
>> epochmaking
>> incompleteness theorem of 1931, that it is actually an extension
>> of classical mathematics. At least, this is true for arithmetic (or
>> number
>> theory), but the less said about intuitionistic analysis the better.

In that there is an ionterpretation of classical arithmetic in classical
arithmetic via the double negation translation (for arithmetic),
ie treating classical formulae as meaning something other
than what they say up front, as far as the intuitionistic reading goes.

>> In the light of Godel’s result, we can say that what Brouwer really
>> did was extend classical mathematics by the creation of two new
>> logical
>> operators: the constructive there exists and the constructive or,
>> stronger
>> than their classical counterparts.

And the constructive implication ...

>> Unfortunately for clarity and
>> civility,
>> Godel’s paper did not receive the proper attention or interpretation,
>> and
>> the unseemly squabble dragged on.
>> </quote>
>>
>> Ed Nelson, "Confessions of an Apostate Mathematician", p5
>> https://web.math.princeton.edu/~nelson/papers/rome.pdf
>
> If we look at the sequence a_n = cos(n!), n >= 0, we get a
> bounded sequence in [-1, 1]. So, this sequence has
> a convergent sub-sequence. Or, there exists a D in [-1, 1]
> such that for any epsilon>0, and any natural number K, there is
> an 'm' with m > K such that: | a_m - D | < epsilon .
>
> There's a mixture of "for all" and "there exists" quantifiers
> there. How would a constructive Q meaning
> Exists: ForAll: ForAll: Exists: P(variables)
> based on the "Exists D" sentence appear, roughly? (refering to Q?)

Q does not talk about cosine, or real numbers at all.

But in general there are two answers: take the statement literally, in
which case it means coming up with a witness term for the D, and an
effective function for m as a function of k, and also for the modulus of
convergence (a_m as a function of m), such that the condition holds.

Alternatively, look at the double negation of the statement,
by replacing "some x. P x" with "not (all x. not (P x))" --
the order relation over reals needs attention also.

> David Bernier
>

--
Alan Smaill

[Alan Smaill]

The "famous paper" is not at issue here;
the paper in question is:

K. Gödel (1933), "Zur intuitionistischen Arithmetik und
Zahlentheorie", Ergebnisse eines mathematischen Kolloquiums, v. 4,
pp. 34–38

> Therefore it is irrelevant to mathematics.

Please explain where the paper above depends in any essential way
on the notion of "completed infinity".

[Jürgen R.]

"WM" <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:4e8b34ce-aca2-4e45...@6g2000vbv.googlegroups.com...

In that case, obviously, Nelson must be wrong.

> But it is more important to
> emphasize this: Gödel's famous paper got much too much attention. It
> is based on the existence of completed infinity implying the existence
> of uncountable sets (cp. Matheology § 023
> http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~mueckenh/KB/Matheology.pdf
> ). Therefore it is irrelevant to mathematics.

In that case, obviously, Gödel must be wrong.

The only question is: If Nelson and Gödel and Cantor and
Hilbert and most other mathematicians are wrong,
how can Mückenheim tell?


>
> Regards, WM

[WM]

On 9 Jun., 23:41, Alan Smaill <sma...@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:

> WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> writes:
> > On 9 Jun., 21:31, FredJeffries <fredjeffr...@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> <quote>
> >> The Brouwer-Hilbert debate
> >> was unnecessary because both parties shared a common misconception:
> >> that Brouwer’s intuitionism was a restriction of classical
> >> mathematics.
> >> But Godel showed in a short paper, published two years after his
> >> epochmaking
> >> incompleteness theorem of 1931, that it is actually an extension
> >> of classical mathematics. At least, this is true for arithmetic (or
> >> number
> >> theory), but the less said about intuitionistic analysis the better.
>
> >> In the light of Godel’s result, we can say that what Brouwer really
> >> did was extend classical mathematics by the creation of two new
> >> logical
> >> operators: the constructive there exists and the constructive or,
> >> stronger
> >> than their classical counterparts. Unfortunately for clarity and
> >> civility,
> >> Godel’s paper did not receive the proper attention or interpretation,
> >> and
> >> the unseemly squabble dragged on.
> >> </quote>
>

> >> Ed Nelson, "Confessions of an Apostate Mathematician", p5https://web.math.princeton.edu/~nelson/papers/rome.pdf-Zitierten Text ausblenden -

>
> > Here I do not agree with Ed Nelson.
> > But it is more important to
> > emphasize this: Gödel's famous paper got much too much attention. It
> > is based on the existence of completed infinity implying the existence
> > of uncountable sets (cp. Matheology § 023
> >http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~mueckenh/KB/Matheology.pdf
> > ).
>
> The "famous paper" is not at issue here;

I know. Therefore I said: But it is ***more*** important to emphasize
this ...

> the paper in question is:
>
>   K. Gödel (1933), "Zur intuitionistischen Arithmetik und
>   Zahlentheorie", Ergebnisse eines mathematischen Kolloquiums, v. 4,
>   pp. 34–38
>
> > Therefore it is irrelevant to mathematics.
>
> Please explain where the paper above depends in any essential way
> on the notion of "completed infinity".

I have not read it. And I do not intend to read it.

Regards, WM

[Jesse F. Hughes]

>>   pp. 34-38

>>
>> > Therefore it is irrelevant to mathematics.
>>
>> Please explain where the paper above depends in any essential way
>> on the notion of "completed infinity".
>
> I have not read it. And I do not intend to read it.

So, you do not agree with Ed Nelson's comments on a paper that you have
not read and do not intend to read. Well, that's good to know.

Please, feel free to announce any other uninformed opinions you might
have. We're all keen to hear about it.

--
"Sexual love makes of the loved person an Object of appetite; as soon
as that appetite has been stilled, the person is cast aside as one
casts away a lemon which has been sucked dry." -- Immanuel Kant
"Squeeze my lemon til the juice runs down my leg." -- Robert Johnson

[Virgil]

In article
<1251f308-03be-47a7...@m10g2000vbn.googlegroups.com>,

Afraid?
--

[WM]

> >> >> Ed Nelson, "Confessions of an Apostate Mathematician", p5https://web.math.princeton.edu/~nelson/papers/rome.pdf-ZitiertenText ausblenden -

>
> >> > Here I do not agree with Ed Nelson.
> >> > But it is more important to
> >> > emphasize this: Gödel's famous paper got much too much attention. It
> >> > is based on the existence of completed infinity implying the existence
> >> > of uncountable sets (cp. Matheology § 023
> >> >http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~mueckenh/KB/Matheology.pdf
> >> > ).
>
> >> The "famous paper" is not at issue here;
>
> > I know. Therefore I said: But it is ***more*** important to emphasize
> > this ...
>
> >> the paper in question is:
>
> >>   K. Gödel (1933), "Zur intuitionistischen Arithmetik und
> >>   Zahlentheorie", Ergebnisse eines mathematischen Kolloquiums, v. 4,
> >>   pp. 34-38
>
> >> > Therefore it is irrelevant to mathematics.
>
> >> Please explain where the paper above depends in any essential way
> >> on the notion of "completed infinity".
>
> > I have not read it. And I do not intend to read it.
>
> So, you do not agree with Ed Nelson's comments on a paper

I do not agree with what Fred Jeffries quoted.

> that you have
> not read and do not intend to read.  Well, that's good to know.
>
> Please, feel free to announce any other uninformed opinions you might
> have.  We're all keen to hear about it.
>

As you seem incapable of understanding written texts, that would not
benefit you. And who is "you all"?

Regards, WM

[Virgil]

In article
<2e4e92cc-072c-463d...@d6g2000vbe.googlegroups.com>,

WM <muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> As you seem incapable of understanding written texts

Wm seems even more so.
--

[Jesse F. Hughes]

Which were comments on a paper of which you are admittedly ignorant.

>
>> that you have
>> not read and do not intend to read.  Well, that's good to know.
>>
>> Please, feel free to announce any other uninformed opinions you might
>> have.  We're all keen to hear about it.
>>
>
> As you seem incapable of understanding written texts, that would not
> benefit you. And who is "you all"?

Me, the mouse in my left pocket and the sentient lint in my bellybutton.

--
Jesse F. Hughes
"Basically there are two angry groups. I am a harsh force of
one. Against me is a society of mathematicians. So far it's been a
draw." -- JSH gives another display of keen insight.

[Alan Smaill]

It is ***less** relevant --
in fact it is irrelevant.

>> the paper in question is:
>>
>>   K. Gödel (1933), "Zur intuitionistischen Arithmetik und
>>   Zahlentheorie", Ergebnisse eines mathematischen Kolloquiums, v. 4,
>>   pp. 34–38
>>
>> > Therefore it is irrelevant to mathematics.
>>
>> Please explain where the paper above depends in any essential way
>> on the notion of "completed infinity".
>
> I have not read it. And I do not intend to read it.

In other words, you dismiss out of hand a claim by someone in one area
on the grounds that you disagree with their opinion in another area,
and admit you do not care to investigate the point at issue.

I'm glad that is now clarified.

[WM]

> >> >> Ed Nelson, "Confessions of an Apostate Mathematician", p5https://web.math.princeton.edu/~nelson/papers/rome.pdf-ZitiertenText ausblenden -

>
> >> > Here I do not agree with Ed Nelson.
> >> > But it is more important to
> >> > emphasize this: Gödel's famous paper got much too much attention. It
> >> > is based on the existence of completed infinity implying the existence
> >> > of uncountable sets (cp. Matheology § 023
> >> >http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~mueckenh/KB/Matheology.pdf
> >> > ).
>
> >> The "famous paper" is not at issue here;
>
> > I know. Therefore I said: But it is ***more*** important to emphasize
> > this ...
>
> It is ***less** relevant --
> in fact it is irrelevant.
>
> >> the paper in question is:
>
> >>   K. Gödel (1933), "Zur intuitionistischen Arithmetik und
> >>   Zahlentheorie", Ergebnisse eines mathematischen Kolloquiums, v. 4,
> >>   pp. 34–38
>
> >> > Therefore it is irrelevant to mathematics.
>
> >> Please explain where the paper above depends in any essential way
> >> on the notion of "completed infinity".
>
> > I have not read it. And I do not intend to read it.
>
> In other words, you dismiss out of hand a claim by someone in one area
> on the grounds that you disagree with their opinion in another area,
> and admit you do not care to investigate the point at issue.

I do not agree with what Fred Jeffries quoted.

Regards, WM

[Virgil]

In article
<993cb6cb-6c58-4476...@a16g2000vby.googlegroups.com>,

> > >> > emphasize this: G�del's famous paper got much too much attention. It

> > >> > is based on the existence of completed infinity implying the existence
> > >> > of uncountable sets (cp. Matheology � 023
> > >> >http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~mueckenh/KB/Matheology.pdf
> > >> > ).
> >
> > >> The "famous paper" is not at issue here;
> >
> > > I know. Therefore I said: But it is ***more*** important to emphasize
> > > this ...
> >
> > It is ***less** relevant --
> > in fact it is irrelevant.
> >
> > >> the paper in question is:
> >

> > >> � K. G�del (1933), "Zur intuitionistischen Arithmetik und

> > >> � Zahlentheorie", Ergebnisse eines mathematischen Kolloquiums, v. 4,
> > >> � pp. 34�38
> >
> > >> > Therefore it is irrelevant to mathematics.
> >
> > >> Please explain where the paper above depends in any essential way
> > >> on the notion of "completed infinity".
> >
> > > I have not read it. And I do not intend to read it.
> >
> > In other words, you dismiss out of hand a claim by someone in one area
> > on the grounds that you disagree with their opinion in another area,
> > and admit you do not care to investigate the point at issue.
>
> I do not agree with what Fred Jeffries quoted.

Your disagreeability is not binding a=on anyone else.
--

[Jesse F. Hughes]

>> >>   pp. 34-38

>>
>> >> > Therefore it is irrelevant to mathematics.
>>
>> >> Please explain where the paper above depends in any essential way
>> >> on the notion of "completed infinity".
>>
>> > I have not read it. And I do not intend to read it.
>>
>> In other words, you dismiss out of hand a claim by someone in one area
>> on the grounds that you disagree with their opinion in another area,
>> and admit you do not care to investigate the point at issue.
>
> I do not agree with what Fred Jeffries quoted.

The quote is about a paper of which you remain intentionally ignorant.
Who cares what you think about things of which you're ignorant?

--
Jesse F. Hughes

"If you believe there is any other truth but what is in your mind, you
are deluding yourself." -- Demers Paradox

[WM]

On 12 Jun., 00:36, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > I do not agree with what Fred Jeffries quoted.
>
> Your disagreeability is not binding a=on anyone else.

No? That's really disappointing.

Regards, WM

[WM]

On 12 Jun., 03:08, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:

> > I do not agree with what Fred Jeffries quoted.
>
> The quote is about a paper of which you remain intentionally ignorant.
> Who cares what you think about things of which you're ignorant?

Why do you emphasize that? Would you care what I think about things of
which I am not ignorant?

Regards, WM

[Virgil]

In article
<cdb3eb00-0d02-447e...@5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com>,

Only for WM himself. But he deserves disappointment.
--

[Virgil]

In article
<2032212f-202f-468f...@q2g2000vbv.googlegroups.com>,

Are there any such things?

I don't mean things that WM merely thinks he is not ignorant of, but
things he is actually not ignorant of.
--

[Jesse F. Hughes]

A churlish lad would point out that he hasn't found any.

But, no matter. The quote was about a paper of which you admit
ignorance.

You can't really understand the quote[1], so why comment on it?

Footnotes:
[1] Neither can I, since I am similarly ignorant, but I'm not sharing
my opinion on the quote -- since I have no informed opinion at all.

--
"So when I discovered this [...] in around 2006, what strikes me the
most about that discovery is how little I celebrated. How little I
congratulated myself for a job well done. And I am usually good at
congratulating myself." -- Archimedes Plutonium, Yay!

[Graham Cooper]

On Jun 13, 9:13 am, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:

> WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> writes:
> > On 12 Jun., 03:08, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote:
>
> >> > I do not agree with what Fred Jeffries quoted.
>
> >> The quote is about a paper of which you remain intentionally ignorant.
> >> Who cares what you think about things of which you're ignorant?
>
> > Why do you emphasize that? Would you care what I think about things of
> > which I am not ignorant?
>
> A churlish lad would point out that he hasn't found any.
>
> But, no matter.  The quote was about a paper of which you admit
> ignorance.
>
> You can't really understand the quote[1], so why comment on it?
>
> Footnotes:
> [1]  Neither can I, since I am similarly ignorant, but I'm not sharing
> my opinion on the quote -- since I have no informed opinion at all.
>

He who is more ignorant wins!

Herc

--
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-TURING
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-CANTOR
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-GODEL
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-PROOF
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-LOGIC
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-HALT
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-P-NP
http://tinyURL.com/BLUEPRINTS-GUT

[Rotwang]

On May 24, 5:26 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> [...]
>
> Brouwer's constructivism is claimed, by matheologians, to be a

> possible, equally recognized alternative. That's wrong. If Brouwer is
> right, then matheology is wrong. There is no possible coexistence such
> that an intelligent being could choose between them.
>
> At least after my proofs there is, for correct mathematics, no longer
> the liberty of chosing this or that set of axioms. ZFC is in
> contradiction with mathematics.
>

> And already Brouwer did not mean to devise an "alternative", but he

> knew, Cantor is wrong: "De tweede getalklasse van Cantor bestaat
> niet".

Are you listening, Transfer Principle? If so then I'd very much like
to know where these statements by WM fit into your programme of
mathematical pluralism.