In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, email@example.com wrote:
> 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 intended 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?
While I read WM's postings for the fun of finding the new ways he is alwasys inventing for being wrong.
And as WM himself conceded, Zermelo's phrasing is often used to mean merely "seems", with no implication that what seems to be is not actual. > And we have only WM's unnsuppored and unsupportable claim that WM's interpretation does not represent his usual bias. --