
Re: Endorsement of Wolfgang Mueckenheim from a serious mathematician
Posted:
Jan 31, 2013 10:35 AM


On Tue, 29 Jan 2013 20:30:12 0800 (PST), 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?
Yes, it's certainly important if you're going to say he has an endorsement from a serious mathematician.
Because people here don't object to his "philosophy". A person can do standard mathematics, including all that stuff about infinite sets, without believing that infinite sets "really" exist.
The problem is that WM's version of the technical details is always nonsense. His arguments about binary trees are simply _wrong_. Wrong in basic simply ways, totally independent of one's attitude on any sort of "philosophical" question.

