The Math Forum

Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Math Forum » Discussions » sci.math.* » sci.math

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Matheology 203
Replies: 16   Last Post: Feb 7, 2013 8:06 AM

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]

Posts: 18,076
Registered: 1/29/05
Re: Matheology 203
Posted: Feb 7, 2013 2:14 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

On 6 Feb., 23:10, Ralf Bader <> wrote:

> > I don't know what Brouwer believed. I know what he wrote
> but you don't understand it.

> > : Cantor's 2nd
> > number class does not exist.

> Of course, when discrepancies between Brouwer and, ummmh, you show up then
> Brouwer is wrong and you are right.

I cannot see any difference between Brouwers sentence "Cantor's 2nd
number class does not exist" and my position: "Cantor's 2nd number
class does not exist". Perhaps you are of different opinion, but that
is your personal problem.

Regards, WM

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.