The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: fom - 01 - preface
Replies: 18   Last Post: Dec 12, 2012 3:34 PM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]

Posts: 18,076
Registered: 1/29/05
Re: fom - 01 - preface
Posted: Dec 12, 2012 2:07 PM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 12 Dez., 17:07, Shmuel (Seymour J.) Metz
<> wrote:
> In <virgil-7E972C.00424412122...@BIGNEWS.USENETMONSTER.COM>, on
> 12/12/2012
>    at 12:42 AM, Virgil <> said:

> >It is hardly clear from the snipped quote from my post that
> >he/she/it necessarily refers to Cantor.

> In fact, it should have been clear the "s/h/it" referred to WM. It was
> not Cantor who made the claim.

So you are not only a coward who is unable to admit that s/h/it has
made a mistake (or is unable to perform first semester proofs), but
also too uncultured to know what s/h/it talks about.

Cantor said: Die bisherige Darstellung meiner Untersuchungen in der
Mannigfaltigkeitslehre ist an einen Punkt gelangt, wo ihre Fortführung
von einer Erweiterung des realen ganzen Zahlbegriffs (extension of the
notion of real whole numbers) über die bisherigen Grenzen hinaus
abhängig wird, und zwar fällt diese Erweiterung in eine Richtung, in
welcher sie meines Wissens bisher noch von niemandem gesucht worden

But I see that the average matheologian is very unknowledgeable. In
some respects that is satisfactory for me.

Regards, WM

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.