> On 14 Apr., 01:32, Ralf Bader <ba...@nefkom.net> wrote: > >> You have no idea how quantifiers work. They >> are not an abbreviation for colloquial phrases like "for all", in the way >> you introduce them in your idiotic "bestseller". > > Well, do you mean this bestseller? > http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~mueckenh/Infinity/Bestseller.pdf > It has been read by a lot of mathematicians (before it became a > bestseller, even before it has been printed), none of which criticized > my explanation of "forall" (many criticized my thoughts on infinity). > I think that many of them are far more knowledegeable and intelligent > than you.
I think you should worry about your own intelligence. I said that there is somehing more to a quantifier than that "forall", and you obviously don't grasp this. That somebody didn't criticize your "explanation of "forall"" is beyond my point (but to see this may require a little bit of intelligence).
> But I have to confess that I had not yet acces to the secret code of > matheology that you obviously are about to invent in analogy to > Masonic cipher http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pigpen_cipher > or 88 and USA in the Nazi-scene. In case you have not yet fixed the > meaning of "forall" in that code, I propose: > > failure of reason and logical law.
And today your next great feat: The most idiotically pulled Godwin I've ever seen. You are so funny in displaying stupidity. Hahahahahaha.