On 30 Mai, 14:59, "Jesse F. Hughes" <je...@phiwumbda.org> wrote: > Mueckenheim is also cited as an authority on infinity at this > educational site: > > http://www.learner.org/courses/mathilluminated/units/3/resources/inde... > > I didn't see any evidence that WM's horrid arguments actually > influenced the text of the site.
You seem to have overlooked: ?His polarizing results generated much controversy that, to this day, is not completely resolved.?
> Nonetheless, students who want to > learn more about Cantor are directed to WM's illogical blatherings.
Illogical blatherings you may find when reading Fools Of Mathematics or something like that. > > Still, I blame most WM's employer for putting him in a position of > authority to educate students on exactly that material he has shown no > capacity to understand.
Wow, do you really belong to that small elite group of scholars who understand cardinal and ordinal exponentiation? How did you manage that task? Certainly you also understand the ordinary mistakes of set theory. (Only the cardinal mistakes may have escaped you.)
How can someone believe that set theory is too difficult to understand for an average intelligence? Are you so proud to have managed it that you have lost all measure?
> I can't comprehend how that situation has > remained. I'm sure that WM is tenured, but that doesn't entail that > he can teach bad mathematical reasoning in the classroom, does it?
Therefore I don?t do so, but teach good mathematics, namely mathematics that is free of confusing the different kinds of infinity and free of the due silly results.
