
Re: Endorsement of Wolfgang Mueckenheim from a nonmathematician
Posted:
Jan 30, 2013 3:57 PM


Virgil wrote: > In article <264ae92799f645a49e5248cf1ce3aed0@googlegroups.com>, > david petry <david_lawrence_petry@yahoo.com> wrote: > >> On Tuesday, January 29, 2013 5:26:38 PM UTC8, W. Dale Hall wrote: >>> 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." >>> >>>> >>> >>>> http://www.math.rutgers.edu/~zeilberg/Opinion68.html >>> >>>> >>> >>>> >>> >>>> I'd be interested in seeing an English translation of the bottom of page >>>> 112 and the top of page 113. >>> >>>> >>> >>> >>> >>> I suppose you missed the statement that immediately followed that: >>> >>> >>> >>> Clarification added Aug. 25, 2011: My endorsement of Wolfgang >>> >>> Mueckenheim's wonderful book is purely philosophical. I have no >>> >>> expertise, or interest, in checking any possible technical >>> >>> claims that he may have made. >> >> >> Of course I did not miss that. Is that extremely important? > > It means that the person being convinced by WM's argument is essentially > totally ignorant of both mathematics and logic, so has no idea of the > logical and mathematical consequences of assuming no actual > infiniteness. >
I wouldn't take that reading, given the author (Doron Zeilberg). Instead, I'd take his (DZ's) opinion to be based on other than mathematical grounds. As I understand WM's intent, it is precisely mathematical content that should govern acceptance of his (WM's) thesis. Zeilberg's appraisal does precisely none of that.

