
Re: § 456 David Hilbert on the infinite
Posted:
Apr 5, 2014 1:15 PM


On Fri, 04 Apr 2014 09:23:52 0700, mueckenh wrote:
> On Friday, 4 April 2014 18:16:47 UTC+2, Virgil wrote: >> In article <82c859af4e1e431fb549b4f8b1119967@googlegroups.com>, >> >> mueckenh@rz.fhaugsburg.de wrote: >> >> >> >> > On Friday, 4 April 2014 08:30:11 UTC+2, Virgil wrote: >> >> >> > >> >> > >> >> > >> > > Which problem WM carefully ignores! >> >> >> >> >> >> WM having snipped the sense from my posting, >> >> I have now snipped the nonsense from his. > > This "nonsense" was only Dedekind's explanation of what complete > induction is.
No. It was not an explanation of anything but a snippet from an enumeration of basic ideas of the ensuing work in the preface (to the first edition), leaving out the references to the paragraphs of the body of the paper. So the only thing you show is the usual one: Obviously you are not amomg the intended readers of the paper, due to a lack of the stated requirement of common sense. You would be the intended reader of papers in which an ability to misunderstand and distort everything in the most stupid ways is required as a prerequisite, but there are not many of those.

