In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> On 7 Dez., 22:35, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > In article > > <e903ef43-fcb6-43f7-8ce3-e61c725ff...@8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>, > > > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > On 6 Dez., 21:29, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > > > In article > > > > <a70f6b2c-c9a2-426d-9da4-70ad9785b...@o6g2000yql.googlegroups.com>, > > > > > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > > > A unit lenght 1 times aleph_0 is what? > > > > > > Nonsense! > > > > > A unit times aleph_0 is aleph_0. > > > > That presumes that Aleph_0 is amenable to some sort of multiplication > > and division. > > > > A claim that requires proof, as Aleph_0 is not a member of any of the > > sets of numbers for which multiplication is defined, and is not a unit > > of measure, like yards or metres, that can be halved or doubled > > meaningfully. > > -- > > Try to learn set theory, for instance here: > http://www.hs-augsburg.de/~mueckenh/GU/GU11.PPT#355,28,Folie 28
For WM to think that I, or any other mathematician, would look to any publication because he endorses it, much less one that is apparently written by him, to learn anything about set theory in particular or mathematics in general, is a totally unwarranted exhibition of arrogance.
Note that WM occasionally does copy from competent mathematicians, but their competence is known in spite of it, rather than because it. --