In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 8 Apr., 10:59, Dan <dan.ms.ch...@gmail.com> wrote: > > > > > Well, in "standard set theory" we also have uncountable sets . > > Judging by your history on sci.math , you shouldn't be using "standard > > set theory" as an argument . > > I use it as it is in order to contradict it.
Except that WM tries to impose his own spin on everything, a spin that does not apply anywhere outside of Wolkenmuekenheim.
Also, WM is extremely sloppy with the use of many mathematical terms which have, at least outside of Wolkenmuekenheim, precise definitions. > > I am not interested in attempts to save it, since every such attempt > will unavoidably lead to failure on another point, like a tablecloth > that is too short to cover the table. The idea of finished infinity is > insane. It cannot be saved.