Drexel dragonThe Math ForumDonate to the Math Forum


Math Forum
 Ask Dr. Math
 Discussions
 Internet Newsletter
 MathTools
 Problems of the Week
 Teacher2Teacher
 Teacher Exchange
 Workshops

Search All of the Math Forum:
Browse our Internet Mathematics Library

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


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

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

Advanced Search
Reply to this Topic Reply to this Topic

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de

Posts: 12,658
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 <ba...@nefkom.net> 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]

© Drexel University 1994-2013. All Rights Reserved.
The Math Forum is a research and educational enterprise of the Drexel University School of Education.