> On 8 Feb., 12:13, Alan Smaill <sma...@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> wrote: >> >> 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
On Feb 6th you posted as follows:
" [I said] > Brouwer did not believe that all infinte sets are countable -- > your claims in that direction are simply false.
[WM replied] I don't know what Brouwer believed. I know what he wrote: Cantor's 2nd number class does not exist. "
WM is inconsistent.
> But I do not discuss with you about > that opinionb because you turn every word in my mouth.
I repeat your own words back to you.
> Therefore I > repeat only what he wrote. You see in the parallel thread that you are > completely off.
>> 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.
You miss the point as ever -- you are suggesting that intuitionists were bullied into making a claim that Hilbert et al did *not* accept, viz:
> > Constructively it is consistent to assert the > > subcountability of some uncountable collections .