Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- From: Virgil <virgil@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Fri, 13 Jul 2007 18:03:33 -0600
In article <1184357968.209174.64990@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
WM <mueckenh@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:
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.
Early onset Alzheimers slowing you down?
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.
There are areas of math, like measure theory, which require it.
.
- 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
- From: WM
- Re: Ultimate debunking of Cantor's Theory
- Prev by Date: Re: Bug in Mathematica 6 - Integrate - 43 (simple real-valued integral, Mat
- 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):
Relevant Pages
|
