Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: WM <mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 13:19:28 -0700
On 11 Jul., 16:28, tommy1729 <tommy1...@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
its kind a funny , in the beginning nobody dared to put up a topic against cantor apart from me and david petry.
There were sober mathematicians at all times who did not get infected
by the infinity inabriation. But they were hushed up, and for the
average mathematician it is not easy to recognize the flaw by himself.
When did you see it? I started about 4 years ago to recognize it ---
after I had taught Cantor's proves as paradigmas of brillance of the
human mind for several years.
now there are followers , and they are not neccesarily crakpots , it seems we have given them courage and inspiration.
another strange thing is that Cantor is not neccesary to perform math at all.
Correct.
Regards, WM
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: Virgil
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- References:
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: Cronholm144
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: tommy1729
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- Prev by Date: Re: Possible results from three variables
- Next by Date: Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- Previous by thread: Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- Next by thread: Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- Index(es):
Loading