Date: Feb 8, 2013 1:41 PM
Author: Alan Smaill
Subject: Re: Matheology § 210
WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> writes:
> On 8 Feb., 12:13, Alan Smaill <sma...@SPAMinf.ed.ac.uk> wrote:
>> What a joker!
>> You tell us that you do not know Brouwer's opinion on this question,
>> but here you are telling us what intuitionists accept.
> I know Brouwer's opinion very well
On Feb 6th you posted as follows:
" [I said] > Brouwer did not believe that all infinte sets are countable --
> your claims in that direction are simply false.
[WM replied] I don't know what Brouwer believed.
I know what he wrote: Cantor's 2nd number class does not exist. "
WM is inconsistent.
> But I do not discuss with you about
> that opinionb because you turn every word in my mouth.
I repeat your own words back to you.
> Therefore I
> repeat only what he wrote. You see in the parallel thread that you are
> completely off.
>> As for intuitionists being "forced" into taking up a
>> position inconsistent with classical mathematics by classical
>> mathematicians ...
>> a classic absurdity.
> No. Hilbert fired Brouwer from his most prestigious position with the
> Annalen. That is only one example. The matheologians are in possession
> of the academic keys. To tell them the truth can be very dangerous for
> a man who is young and striving for an academic carrer. I am not in
> danger to loose my post, although some special guys like Bader or
> Rennenkampf have in fact revealed the abyys of their stupend stupidity
> by fighting in written letters for my dismissal.
You miss the point as ever -- you are suggesting that
intuitionists were bullied into making a claim that Hilbert et al
did *not* accept, viz:
> > Constructively it is consistent to assert the
> > subcountability of some uncountable collections .
You are being absurd.
> Regards, WM