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.