|
|
Re: Matheology § 210
Posted:
Feb 8, 2013 1:12 PM
|
|
On 8 Feb., 12:13, Alan Smaill <sma...@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
> WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> writes:
> > On 7 Feb., 20:17, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
> ...
> >> In classical set theory the accessible numbers are listable
>
> >> Note from the Wikipedia quote
>
> >> > Constructively it is consistent to assert the
> >> > subcountability of some uncountable collections
>
> > Of course, the intuitionists accepted this nonsense, perhaps forced by
> > the matheologians.
>
> What a joker!
>
> You tell us that you do not know Brouwer's opinion on this question,
> but here you are telling us what intuitionists accept.
I know Brouwer's opinion very well But I do not discuss with you about
that opinionb because you turn every word in my mouth. Therefore I
repeat only what he wrote. You see in the parallel thread that you are
completely off.
>
> WM is inconsistent.
>
> As for intuitionists being "forced" into taking up a
> position inconsistent with classical mathematics by classical
> mathematicians ...
> a classic absurdity.
No. Hilbert fired Brouwer from his most prestigious position with the
Annalen. That is only one example. The matheologians are in possession
of the academic keys. To tell them the truth can be very dangerous for
a man who is young and striving for an academic carrer. I am not in
danger to loose my post, although some special guys like Bader or
Rennenkampf have in fact revealed the abyys of their stupend stupidity
by fighting in written letters for my dismissal.
And here is a not very important but very interesting example: In
MathOverflow I am not welcome. Everything is immediately deleted.
Therefore, in June 2010 I put a question under cover.
http://mathoverflow.net/questions/30735/when-did-the-career-of-1-as-a-prime-number-begin-and-when-did-it-end-closed
This question got several positive votes, more than 2k views, and a
very good answer. It remained open for 9 month.
Why has it been closed? On April 28, 2011 I reveiled my authorship in
a comment. *On the same day* the question has been closed by a gang of
angry louts (there is not the slightest inkling even for a convinced
matheologian that the question is antimatheologiocal). Here you can
see (not you, of course, but the objective reader) that matheologians
not only rule the print media and the academic realm.
They most aggressively suppress every deviating opinion. In this area
they are really good. There is no other explanation for the continued
existence of matheology.
Could an intelligent man or woman who observes that all levels of the
Binary Tree are crossed by a finite number of distinct paths really
believe that there are uncountably many, where uncountable means much
more than infinitely many?
Regards, WM
|
|
