quasi
Posts:
10,226
Registered:
7/15/05


Re: Endorsement of Wolfgang Mueckenheim from a serious mathematician
Posted:
Jan 30, 2013 6:07 AM


david petry wrote:
>Doron Zeilberger wrote the following in an opinion piece on his >website: > >"Read Wolfgang Mueckenheim's fascinating book ! I especially >like the bottom of page 112 and the top of page 113, that prove, >once and for all, that (at least) the actual infinity is pure >nonsense."
Proves once and for all?
By that wording, Zeilberger appears to be affirming the validity of Mueckheim's claimed "proof" of some theorem or other which supposedly yields the conclusion that "infinity is pure nonsense".
>http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/Opinion68.html
Of course, in the same blog, a few months later, Zeilberger awkwardly tries to retract the claim of "proof", asserting that his earlier post was only intended as an offering of philosophical support.
However, in my opinion, that's a blatant copout.
Worse, I regard Zeilberger's attempted "clarification" as deceitful, as evidenced by his posted statement:
"I have no expertise, or interest, in checking any possible technical claims that he [Muckemheim] may have made."
Insufficient expertise? A straightout lie, in my opinion.
No interest? In a Nov 2005 blog post, Zeilberger mentions Muckenheimer's "fascinating course".
In a Dec 2008 blog post, Zeilberger alludes to results from pages 112 and 113 of Muckenheimer's book. As I see it, it's not believable that Zeilberger would quote results from pages 112 and 113 without spending any time evaluating the first 111 pages. Rather, it's just common sense to assume that Zeilberger actually did put some effort into evaluating Muckenheimer's book, the same book for which he later claimed to have neither expertise nor interest.
Had Zeilberger made a full retraction, he would have suffered some embarrassment, but at least it would have shown integrity. Instead, showing perhaps his true colors, he weaseled out.
quasi

