
Re: Endorsement of Wolfgang Mueckenheim from a nonmathematician
Posted:
Jan 30, 2013 3:58 PM


W. Dale Hall wrote: > 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.
Oops. Zeilberger. My bad.

