Lounesto, one of whose hugest goals was
"showing counterexamples in the mathematics".

Now, whether, "triality is quadratic", also one of those things,
for "a counterexample would be a huge goal of Lounesto".

Who wrote books and from Cambridge ....

These geometric algebras are really beautiful and Hestenes and
Sobczyk and Baylis, Pezzaglia, it's really admired after Cartan and
Cartan, Majorana, after Grassmann after Clifford, the modern
scholastic for coordinate-free and in rotations, ....

Then there's really much for London and after Ramsey, and
Vitali and Hausdorff for their strongly geometry approach,
then "re-Vitali-izing measure theory" and so on, which is an
usual approach to model invariance after symmetry-breaking.
("Quasi"-invariance - symmetrix flex.)

A geometric approach, ....

Alright then, for briefly, this is thanks - as you might read from
sci.logic all this usual general business, "all my mistakes", in
usual, summary, "never wrong".

Thank you I've put meself set in opinion, and more or less stone.

Having the chance to study and research foundations for
twenty years or a few decades, I really put myself a lot to it.

A giant of opinion: "none".

Mathematics has always seemed the most usual terms,
so for writing all the posts, it's a coherent definition throughout.

Then, for a typical summary of "theory", there was lots of
time to write about it, so I put myself to that, too.

Really in theory I do point to myself.

And the rest....

It's simply for me "all the rest", it's a good theory.

Thanks, that's more or less my summary of
"A Theory".

Peano, Cantor, and Zeno?

Most of the "paradoxes" of infinite are given to Zeno.

Cantor has a few more, then Peano is with "here's all you get".

Heap and the Sand-Reckoner, here the view is "of a cave".

It's nice though the beach, Achilles and tortoises all running around, archery.

Then, though I wrote the slates, there's plenty left already there (for most purposes).

So, it's extreme and total when the theory is "Finlayson theory" specifically
"A-Theory: Finlayson's theory of perfect theory", I have most all "Peano,
Cantor, Zeno" on down from that.

With no paradoxes....

Then, the bridge though really is the relevance what results for topology
and connectiveness, that in set theory falls under what are resulting from
the "existence of transfer principle: so for each is so for all together". I.e.,
as a model in set theory, is for making it under terms that it's exactly where
it is so for connectiveness or connectedness, where there is the special
case of constant and uniform motion, in time, the most usual mathematical
object.

So, if you didn't already know "there's these collections of results called
bridge results after transfer principle what result resolving what otherwise
would be matters of paradox", they are central in the measure theory, and
specifically besides the usual invariant measure theory that is geometry,
of a space in itself, is the quasi-invariant, measure theory, where if you know
already there's that "measure theory for spaces of continuous functions"
is more than less the center of topology the center of mathematics.

So, though I put down the slates, it's still so that constructively they're of
course only sliver-iest fragments besides all set theory, geometry, descriptive
set theory, topology, ..., analysis.

I.e., this is all pure mathematics for all applied mathematics - constructively.

Then, that I put down the slates, uncountability and paradox the logical
resolved in a course, a usual course-of-passage the ordinals about numbering
and counting, for geometry and words, and their algebras, it's not to be left
off that in the canon of uncountability in paradox and the logical paradoxes
in quantification, and, reference in words, it comes down from the slates
those result sole inferences - where something like "A Theory" itself,
decides something like those exist.

Now, I understand some of the terrible confusion that set-theoretic transfinity
results even for usual people who studied the infinite for calculus and geometry,
where sometimes methods of exhaustion are simpler as it were than "the infinite"
itself and "formally" at least the 'regular set-theoretic cardinal infinite' is well-defined
if clear, for the usual notion that "the unit line segment is split into infinitely many
equal-sized segments and these are infinitesimals and also iota-values", just because
those are set against each other "let's prove the irrationals are uncountable so LUB"
and "yes naively real analysis is the differential", the measure in the one is a simpler
length assignment, these are 'models of the real numbers, i.e. being models at all
meaning satisfying all the properties of any other model of real numbers', anyways
the point of resolving all this mathematical paradox is: then there is none.