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.
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?