In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 12 Dez., 17:00, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: > > > >>>> Find a different criticism of Alan's remarks > > >>>> if you must. This one is incorrect. > > > > >>> So you disagree that 2 is a real number? > > Obviously you do not.
The nature of 2, whether it is to be regarded as a real, or only a rational, or only an integer, or only a natural or cardinal, depends on context.
Note that when one describes the cardinality of a set as being 2, or that the result of a count is 2, then that 2 is a cardinal or a natural whereas a weight or a length of 2 will be a real. > > > > >> Since you like quoting the Grundlagen, try > > >> transcribing long detailed passages from > > >> section 9 > > > > > I have written read an written everything Cantor wrote.
You often try to rewrite what Cantor has written, but you always fail to get the spirit right and often the facts as well. --