In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, Dan Christensen <Dan_Christensen@sympatico.ca> wrote:
> On Friday, May 2, 2014 2:15:01 PM UTC-4, muec...@rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote: > > On Friday, 2 May 2014 16:54:15 UTC+2, Dan Christensen wrote: > > > > After over a century of intensive scrutiny, > > > > > > > > Wrong. Most mathematicians have simply accepted what their leaders said. > > Some have really found contradictions but they have been silenced, i.e., > > their papers have rarely been mentioned by the leading matheologians. > > > > Sounds far-fetched. > > > > > > > > no one has been able to demonstrate any inconsistency arising from that > > > the Peano's Axioms for the infinite set of natural numbers. > > > > > > > > There is no inconsistency if |N is interpreted as a potentially infinite > > set. > > > > There would be nothing -- certainly no formal development of number theory as > far as I can tell. > > > > > > > > But we know that every expression that can appear in eternity in the whole, > > possibly infinite, universe belongs to a countable set. Therefore also > > every expression that can appear in the mathematical discourse belongs to a > > countable set. > > > > How do "we" know this? Is it too much to ask for a formal proof?
WM is not enough of a mathematician to produce any formal proofs of his own claims, and no one else has ever produced any proofs of WM's claims. So, yes, it is to much to ask of WM. --