On 6/27/2013 5:08 AM, firstname.lastname@example.org 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. >
Well, it would seem that you are back to directing that same insult.
As with others who have relied on the same crutch, I will state once more that I merely establish what is in the literature.
As for originality:
I have written formal axioms.
I have thought through the difference between Cantor and Frege (by the way, a Cantorian "theory of ones" is not a "strokes-as-numerals" representation of number)
I have thought through Zermelo's discussion of partition lattices in relation to the axiom of choice and the distinguished elements dictated by its use.
I have argued for topological and geometric foundations which is precisely what Lawvere suggests in his discussion of category-theoretic foundations -- my representations, however, are direct and not vague.
And the list goes on.
You choose to be ignorant of what is original in my work.
"Society" rewards men like you, Herr Doktor. It is a shame that you choose to not live up to what is implied by such an address.