> 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'sc > 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.
So Zermelo somewhere sometimes asked that question "Couldn't just the seemingly so fruitful hypothesis of the infinite have straightly inserted contradictions into mathematics and have fundamentally distroyed the basic nature of this science which is so proud on its consistency?"
The answer Zermelo probably gave on this question seems to be uninteresting to Mückenheim, but he produces in his usual idiotic manner a pile of nonsense about Zeremelo being unable to correctly distinguish "anscheinend" and "scheinbar". Well, if the hypothesis of the infinite leads to contradictions then it was only "scheinbar" fruitful; that is, it seemed to be fruitful but actually it is not. So Zermelo's usage of "scheinbar" in this context is perfectly correct, and as usual it is Mückenheim whose knowledge of German is limited. Moreover he obviously is too stupid to distingish a rhetorical question from a statement of fact.