In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> 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/in > > de... > > > > I didn't see any evidence that WM's horrid arguments actually > > influenced the text of the site. > > You seem to have overlooked: ³His polarizing results generated much > controversy that, to this day, is not completely resolved.² > > > 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?
One does not have to understand all of it to undersatnd that it is both valid mathematics and often quite interesting, whereas what WM is trying to sell is neither.
> How did you manage > that task?
By not taking WM's claims on faith.
At least one can spot many of the errors of WM's perverted version of set theory. > > How can someone believe that set theory is too difficult to > understand for an average intelligence?
WM is a true believer in his faith (see Eric Hoffer on true believers) and is untouchable by any fact or logical argument not agreeing with that faith.
But WM's claims require that names of numbers and the numbers they name are identical, which as anyone can plainly see thy are not.
> Are you so proud to have managed it that you have lost all measure?
Mathematical measure theory requires infinite sets, so it is WM who has lost all measure by denying its basis. > > > 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 don¹t 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. > > Regards, WM