quasi
Posts:
9,076
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 straight-out 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
|
|
