On Wednesday, 30 April 2014 22:07:44 UTC+2, Ralf Bader wrote: > Virgil wrote: > > > > > 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;
In that case Zermelo had not have to ask his question but then he had already answered it - in the negative. Try some logic.