In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com wrote:
> On Thursday, 27 June 2013 11:52:27 UTC+2, fom wrote: > > > It is one thing to speak of "strokes-as-numerals" > > So did Cantor: "Da aus jedem einzelnen Elemente m, wenn man von seiner > Beschaffenheit absieht, eine "Eins" wird, so ist die Kardinalzahl M selbst > eine bestimmte aus lauter Einsen zusammengesetzte Menge" > (The cardinal is a set constituted of ones.) > > > and mimic arguments that are in the literature. > > That's your main occupation. > > > It is a different thing to work without axioms or logic and mangle > > different subjects senselessly.
Which is WM's main occupation!!! > > If you worked with logic and axioms, you could conclude from A > 1 (which has > been defined by set theory) on 1/A < 1. You could even prove it. But "A > 1 " is not a set theoretic definition, but a numerical assumption, at least until it is known that A does NOT represent a number. > > Of course matheologians Like WM.
> try to escape the comparison of matheology with > mathematics. But aleph_0 > 1 has been put! That cannot be denied. Withdraw > it, and everybody can see that matheology is independent of mathematics and > vice versa.
Matheology is a creation of WM's and WM is its sole support.
Without WM, matheology would cease exist, and mathematics would happily go on using set theories without either it or him. --