Date: Mar 22, 2013 3:53 PM
Author: fom
Subject: Re: Matheology § 224

On 3/22/2013 2:31 PM, Virgil wrote:
> In article
> <c14b377a-9857-4f4c-bfec-c0fba1b69d15@f5g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,
> WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
>

>> On 22 Mrz., 09:14, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:
>>> On 3/22/2013 1:55 AM, WM wrote:
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>>

>>>> On 21 Mrz., 20:35, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote:
>>>>> On 3/21/2013 10:11 AM, WM wrote:
>>>
>>>>>> Induction does not need time.
>>>
>>>>> In
>>>
>>>>> news://news.giganews.com:119/f23c81fd-2463-4d3f-8df4-04799a493...@z4g2000
>>>>> vbz.googlegroups.com

>>>
>>>>> WM wrote:
>>>
>>>>> ================
>>>>> Everything that is in the list
>>>>> 1
>>>>> 1, 2
>>>>> 1, 2, 3
>>>>> ...
>>>>> 1, 2, 3, ..., n
>>>>> is in the last line. Alas as soon as you try to fix it, it is no
>>>>> longer the last line.

>>>
>>>> The former is the position of set theory, the latter is the correct
>>>> way of thinking - useful for those who can think.

>>>
>>> If you believe that to be the case,
>>> why will you not explain the details?

>>
>> Because every intelligent reader has already got it.

>
> Intelligent readers have already pegged WM as a kook and a nut.
>
> In earlier times, WM would be one of those claiming to have trisected
> angles, squared circles or duplicated cubes.
>


Some of those were honest mistakes.

What is going on here is not.

One can only hope that, anyone reading these posts
who agrees with WM as a matter of belief is
recognizing:

his general lack of logical consistency,

his inability to provide convincing statements
of proof when asked,

his inability to justify his foundational claims,

his refusal to define non-standard use of terms,

his general lack of knowledge on matters that
have led to the received paradigm of modern
mathematics.