In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> 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.
Your ennumeration is existence-free. It does not exist.
> > > 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?
WM's mouth dwarfs everyone else's here. > > 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.
And NOT studying things is WM's modus operandi! --