On 28 Dez., 20:19, Zuhair <zaljo...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Dec 28, 8:14 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > It not obvious to me, what you call parameter-free. (And you need not > > explain it, because I am not interested in your interpretation.) > > Regards, WM > > If you are not interested in my interpretation of parameter free > definability (which is standard by the way) then why you answered to > my question by saying "Here is a parameter free enumeration...",
Why? Because my enumeration is parameter free. And that's because there is no parameter involved. You know what a parameter is? You have found a parameter in my enumeration? No? That is why I call my enumeration parameter free.
> By the way you said it is not obvious to you what I meant by parameter > free definable, while this is just the basics of definability of sets > and it is WELL known,
among a gang of big mouths like you?
It was expected from one who aims to refute Cantor > to be more informed. It is expected from one who say that THOUSANDS of > mathematicians for a whole of a century were acting fools and > spreading nonsense to be someone who is well informed on such issues, > but Since you are obviously ignorant why go discuss matters as if you > are well informed?
In order to refute Cantor one need not study nonsense like uncountable languages or parametric definitions without a parameter.
> I think it is obvious now who is the acting fool > and spreading nonsense.