> On Wednesday, 30 April 2014 22:07:44 UTC+2, Ralf Bader wrote: >> Virgil wrote: >> >> >> >> > In article <334606b4-bd5f-41cb-9957-14a06e672170@googlegroups.com>, >> >> > mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de 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. > > Regards, WM
He probably asked the question in order to answer it in the negative (what else but a negative answer should be expected from a person keeping close to Zermelo's outlook?) Thank you for showing that you are unable to understand those rhetoric procedures as well as the ways in which hypotheses are introduced and eliminated, Mr. Professor Greatest Logician Of All Times.
