On Thursday, January 31, 2013 12:55:28 PM UTC+2, WM wrote: > On 31 Jan., 11:31, Tonic...@yahoo.com wrote: > > > > > If a mathematician claims "there is a proof of so and so in this paper" then one assumes he already checked the said proof or at least was led by authiority to believe the said proof is there. > > > > You talk about Hilbert's sketch of his proof of CH? > > http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~mueckenh/KB/Matheology.pdf > > § 205
No, mein Kind: I'm talking of that erratic Doron guy giving you some rather unbased appraisal about something he didn't actually read or, even worse, he didn't actually understand, and then backing off in a rather embarrassingly ridiculous and dumb way.
I though understand how for you, for Petry or, in general, for people of your kind something like that can be flattering...well, enjoy it.