> On 23 Apr., 22:54, Ralf Bader <ba...@nefkom.net> wrote: >> WM wrote: >> > On 22 Apr., 19:08, Ralf Bader <ba...@nefkom.net> wrote: >> >> >> >> Mückenheim seems to think are quantifiers, as >> >> >> a': E\lambda: \lambda is real >> >> >> b': A\lambda: \lambda is real- >> >> >> > The former is declared as a correct math statement, the latter is >> >> > declared as a false math statement. >> >> > Too difficult for you to understand? >> >> >> The matter is that the garbage you composed is >> >> no mathematical statement at all. >> >> > You are wrong. "exists a solution L of x^3 + 1 = 0 with the property L >> > is real" is a mathematicial statement with the existence quantifier. >> >> Are you too stupid to see that this sentence does NOT result from >> resolving your abbreviation? > > Would you tell me (or at least the curious readers) what you find when > "resolving" my abbreviation?
Why should I? The curious reader will be able to find the answer himself. If you can't find out what "resolving an abbreviation" could mean, then it is not my fault. But it is telling that you call the "curious reader" to help you out of that stupid mess which is exclusively yours.
> Perhaps here we can easier figure out > where you go astray, than in problems of infinity. > > Kürzt man ?Lösung der Gleichung x^3 + 1 = 0? mit lambda ab, so lassen > sich die Aussagen prägnant formulieren: > E lambda: lambda ist reell. (w) > > When we abbreviate "resolution of the equality x^3 + 1 = 0" by lambda, > we can say > E lambda, lamda is real. (true)
And this is not the way in which WE use variables and quantifiers.