On Mon, 29 Oct 2012 16:41:41 -0700, JRStern <JRStern@foobar.invalid> wrote:
>While these are *still* not the one I was recalling, they are further >leads: > >Ainsi les definitions qui doivent etre regardees comme >non-predicatives sont celles qui contiennent un cercle vicieux. > >in "The Development of Logic", Kneale and Kneale, Clarendon Press, >1984, p 655. > >Il n'y a point d'infini actuel. Les Cantoriens l'ont oublie, et ils >sont tombes dans la contradiction. p 656. > >-- > >(translations via Google) > >And the definitions that must be regarded as non-predicative are those >that contain a vicious circle. > >There are no actual infinity point. The Cantorians have forgotten, and >they are in grave contradiction.
Again, how in the world does this count as evidence for Poincare suggesting that Cantor assumed his conclusions?
