In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "Ross A. Finlayson" <email@example.com> wrote:
> On Apr 27, 3:12 pm, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > In article > > <7058d749-ce72-4a0e-9dd0-3d82f6554...@s4g2000vbr.googlegroups.com>, > > > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > On 27 Apr., 21:51, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > > > > > No one ever works with actual numbers in mathematics, > > > > they only work with names or numerals for numbers. > > > > > Therefore no one can prove uncountability. > > > > If one had to get hold of actual numbers to do mathematics, there could > > be no mathematics at all. > > > > And it is the axiom system for the field of real numbers which implies > > uncountability, not the naming of numbers. > > > > > > > > > > So why is working only with names a problem? > > > > > That is not a problem in mathematics. It is a problem for > > > matheologians. > > > > A type that exists only in WM's imagination, though he applies the term > > broadly to the vast majority of those whom everyone else calls > > mathematicians. > > > > > > > > > > > Infinite strings do not exist in the internet > > > > > > They do as named objects, as do numbers. > > > > > Yes, but not more than countably many. > > > > The evidence for uncountability does not rely on being able to name > > uncountably many individuals. > > > > There are more things in heaven and earth, WM ,than are dreamt of in > > your philosophy. > > -- > > But, didn't you just dream of them in your philosophy?
Every real mathematician does, but WM dreams that they aren't even there to be dreamt of!
Which is the whole point! WM is lacking what it takes to be a real mathematician. --