On Wednesday, 30 April 2014 20:42:18 UTC+2, 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,
But I declared this as my opinion. Certainly you would no longer so eagerly read my texts if I translated not carefully but wrote my opinion about it, would you?
> and we > have only WM's unnsuppored and unsupportable claim that WM's > interpretation states a truth.