> On 24 Dez., 23:47, Alan Smaill <sma...@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> wrote: > >> "Indeed, in his discussion containing his >> he essentially remarks in passing that every linear number is bounded >> above by a real number." > > Cantor's notion of linearity is this:
This is different from the previous definition you gave us .... time for smoke and mirrors?
> Sie erwähnen in Ihrem Schreiben die Frage über die aktual unendlich > kleinen Größen. An mehreren Stellen meiner Arbeit werden Sie die
> Zermelo, the editor of Cantor's work, has not detected any attempt by > Cantor to cheat.
Of course not; Cantor made efforts to clarify his proofs.
> Zermelo notes that Cantor's proof is invalid, he does > not note, however, that multiplying linear magnitudes in Cantor's > sense would be erroneous or a blatant fraud. That insight has been > published by you for the first time (and for the last time too, I > think).
It is just so weird that you regard the mirror image of your own strategy as "fraudulent". It is not.