On 3/20/2013 9:25 PM, Virgil wrote: > In article > <firstname.lastname@example.org>, > WM <email@example.com> wrote: > >> On 20 Mrz., 22:01, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: >> >>> Indeed, you have not even given an explanation >>> of *all* that is agreed upon. >> >> If you don't know the set theoretic meaning of "all natural numbers", >> then you should try to learn it. If you don't know the meaning of >> Cantor's "wohlunterscheidbar" (well-distinguishable) that has to be >> true for all elements of every set, then you should try to learn it. >> > WM suggesting that others need to learn things, when he daily > demonstrates the unplumbed and unplumbable depths depths of his own > ignorance, is a joke. >
It is not simply ignorance.
One may choose not to pay attention to that in which one has little interest.
And, one may inadvertently misinterpret that in which one has interest.
WM pays attention to what he misinterprets.
If he were interested, he would do the hard work needed to learn some of the mathematics to which it all pertains.