> On Oct 30, 1:47 pm, Arturo Magidin <magi...@member.ams.org> wrote: > > 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 > > > > > <magi...@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 > > > but you answered his Question beautifully, 'no University would sink > to peer review any critique on Cantor's theory'. > > This is synonymous with - 'if Cantor's theory was full of holes, we > wouldn't know it!' >
No its not.
We would know its full of holes because the proof is about 5 lines long, is sufficently elementary to be accessible to an intelligent 12 year old, and in over 100 years nobody has raised a plausible objection to it or produced a counter-example.