Date: Dec 8, 2012 5:12 PM
Subject: Re: Matheology � 170
WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 8 Dez., 09:56, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <8fdbe5fd-0568-4163-9913-234b1a029...@10g2000yqk.googlegroups.com>,
> > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > > On 7 Dez., 22:28, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > > > In article
> > > > <3f5b25b6-ae3f-4a92-96dc-49f872d0c...@c16g2000yqi.googlegroups.com>,
> > > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> > > > > Correct. That is a valuable recognition! But an infinity that is less
> > > > > than a larger infinity forces to believe in such crap.
> > > > So you now publicly admit that your whole "triangle" thing is crap!
> > > > --
> > > As its existence depends on actual infinity it is obviously a crap.
> > The existence of actual infinities is irrelevant.
> Wrong. You have the opinion that the existence of actual infinities is
> irrelevant, or more probable: You have not that opinion but you say
> that you had this opinion.
> Regards, WM
AS usual, whenever there is the least possibility of misinterpretation,
WM gleefully does so. And even often when there isn't.
The existence of actual infinities is irrelevant TO THE ALLEGED VALIDITY
OF WM'S ALLEGED TRIANGLE. Though it is of interest to mathematicians and