On Wednesday, 30 April 2014 23:54:10 UTC+2, Virgil wrote:
> > > > 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 I declared this as my opinion.
> > So your opinion is that Zermelo regarded set theory as fruitful!
He could no prove it, but of course he believed it. >
> And most of us rate Zermelo's opinion as worth far more than WM's,
Those need to accept undefinable "real" numbers, i.e., numbers that cannot be mentioned in any way by men. Of course there are such Fools Of Matheology, as I call them, but most mathematicians would not join them.