|
|
Re: Peer-reviewed arguments against Cantor Diagonalization
Posted:
Oct 29, 2012 11:47 PM
|
|
On Monday, October 29, 2012 6:49:41 PM UTC-5, JRStern wrote:
> On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 13:30:43 -0700 (PDT), Arturo Magidin
>
> <magidin@member.ams.org> wrote:
>
>
>
> >> Doesn't this sound rather like what some of the "cranks" hereabouts
>
> >> are trying to say?
>
> >
>
> >Which "cranks", and what specifically do they say that you find
>
> >"rather like" exactly which part of the above?
>
> >
>
> >Yet again: one cannot give you an exact answer if you
>
> >insist on presenting nothing but vague statements that have
>
> >little or no actual content. I certainly have no desire
>
> >to waste my time discussing phantoms and ephemerals,
>
> >so perhaps you can stop being vague and wishy-washy,
>
> >and give some specifics? If you can't, then stop trying
>
> >to think about math. Now. Stop. Yes. You. Stop it.
>
> >There is absolutely no point in discussing mathematics
>
> >on the basis of vague pronouncements, vague statements,
>
> >vague "feelings", and vague impressions; because, whatever
>
> >it is you end up doing, it's not mathematics.
>
>
>
> Thank you for trying, although I have clearly not been able to phrase
>
> a question that you feel has a useful answer.
I find your entire participation now entirely frustrating; now you are actively *refusing* to engage in the discussion in any reasonable way, prefering instead to bow out as soon as specifics are requested from you.
That makes the entire thing nothing but an empty mental exercise on your part, or a successful attempt at having other people waste their time. For which I cannot find any reason to thank you. I do hope, however, that you will be on your way and stop wasting everyone's time, unless you actually want to start engaging in a reasonable manner.
--
Arturo Magidin
|
|
