
Re: § 433 The reason for calling matheology matheol ogy
Posted:
Feb 21, 2014 4:44 PM


On Friday, 21 February 2014 20:01:20 UTC+1, fom wrote:
> Since there is so little (available) translated original > > source material for me to examine,
In order to improve this situation the next five or six paragraphs will contain everything that Cantor mentioned in his papers and in his correspondence about axioms. You will find the German original in de.sci.mathematik and my translation here.
> I cannot vouch for > > your account here. But, if it is true, then why do > > you keep blaming Cantor?
I do not blame him as hard as it may appear sometimes. Cantor had a far better perception of mathematics than his modern disciples. And I am sure that he did not try to deceive. He unconditionally believed in God and finished infinity. That blinded him for the negative aspects (like finite definitions) contradicting his theory > > > > As with anyone being credited with an innovation, > > Cantor worked at a time when meanings of certain > > symbols were not as wellstructured as they are > > today.
Nevertheless he knew better than all his contemporaries and his followers about the most important notions for his theory, namely the difference between potential and actual infinity.
> > Cantor is not your culprit.
Of course not. My culprits are those formalists who believe that they have reached the top of wisdom and that proofs made by machines can be trusted blindly.
Regards, WM

