In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com wrote:
> The original German text by Zermelo contains this phrase: "diese scheinbar so > fruchtbare Hypothese des Unendlichen". That means Zermelo says that set > theory is not really fruitful but seems only to be fruitful while in fact it > is not. > > I am convinced Zermelo did not know or at least did > not use this distinction. Of course he wanted to express that set theory is > apparently fruitful, but what he really said is: set theory seems to be > fruitful but is not. And that is the truth in fact.
It may be that what Zermelo said can be intrepreted in German as WM claims, but that does not mean that it should be. WM himself admits that that is not what Zemelo intented to say, and we have only WM's unnsuppored and unsupportable claim that WM's interpretation states a truth.
Considering WM's track record at quote mining, I do not choose to accept WM's interpretation of anyone else's statements. --