On Feb 3, 7:22 am, FredJeffries <fredjeffr...@gmail.com> wrote: > On Feb 2, 1:02 pm, "Ross A. Finlayson" <ross.finlay...@gmail.com> > wrote: > > > > > It might be remiss to not note that of course there are a wide variety > > of mathematical developments over time and in history that don't > > necessarily have as much approbation as they should in the > > contemporary, with Cauchy/Dedekind/Weierstrass in analysis then to > > Cantor, Russell, and Zermelo and Fraenkel in axiomatic foundations as > > "modern". Newton's, Leibniz', and du Bois-Reymond's infinitesimals > > are notably absent from the one (though Leibniz' notation survives), > > and primary notions of Kant, Hegel, Frege, Quine, Popper the other. > > As well, there are modern attempts to formulate these particular > > notions of the integers as infinite and reals as complete that aren't > > the standard, in light of and in extension of the standard, for > > example of Aczel, Priest, Boucher, Paris and Kirby, and Bishop and > > Cheng. > > There is one outstanding difference between all of those and the > gibberish you post: All of them can be used to solve actual problems > whereas you still cannot show how to use your nonsense to do even > something as simple as determining the area of a triangle.
Cantor's Proof was the 1ST DUMB PROOF
in Mathematics that opened the flood gates to all the dumb supermath proofs that followed!
Proving everything you cannot_do is the only maths Fred can do!