I think that it is worthwhile to argue with the Cantorians. The arguments presented by the non-Cantorians do not have to influence all of Cantorians: it is enough to influence just a few, even one or two. [B. Hale in "Cantor's perpetual fallacy", sci.math (28 Nov 1999)]

Fraenkel was not sure about the correctness of the proof of the Löwenheim-Skolem theorem, and he seems to have had difficulties in analysing the role of logic with sufficient rigour to understand Skolem's paradox {{while}} von Neumann instantly recognized the importance of the results, but he reacted with scepticism about the possibility of overcoming the weakness of axiomatizations they reveal. [H.-D. Ebbinghaus: "Ernst Zermelo: An approach to his life and work", Springer (2007) p. 200]

The adaptation of strong axioms of infinity is thus a theological venture, involving basic questions of belief concerning what is true about the universe. [A. Kanamori, M. Magidor: "The evolution of large cardinal axioms in set theory" in G.H. Müller und D.S. Scott (eds.): "Higher set theory", Springer, Berlin (1978) p. 104]

The clear understanding of formalism in mathematics has led to a rather fixed dogmatic position which reads: Mathematics is what can be done within axiomatic set theory using classical predicate logic. I call this doctrine the Grand Set Theoretic Foundation. [...] It is my contention that this Grand Set Theoretic Foundation is a mistakenly one-sided view of mathematics and also that its precursor doctrine (Dedekind cuts) was also one-sided. [...] Second, set theory is largely irrelevant to the practice of most mathematics. Most professional mathematicians never have occasion to use the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms, while others do not even know them. [S. Mac Lane: "Mathematical models: A sketch for the philosophy of mathematics", The American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 88,7 (1981) p. 467f]

A system of finite mathematics is proposed that has all of the power of classical mathematics. [S. Lavine: "Finite mathematics", Synthese 103,3 (1995) p. 389]

Regards, WM

You sound like Dan-O-Matik, defending his own DC poop.
Only DC poop can be fixed, whereas your psychosis cannot be fixed.

WM schrieb am Samstag, 27. November 2021 um 11:18:48 UTC+1:
> I think that it is worthwhile to argue with the Cantorians. The arguments presented by the non-Cantorians do not have to influence all of Cantorians: it is enough to influence just a few, even one or two. [B. Hale in "Cantor's perpetual fallacy", sci.math (28 Nov 1999)]
>
> Fraenkel was not sure about the correctness of the proof of the Löwenheim-Skolem theorem, and he seems to have had difficulties in analysing the role of logic with sufficient rigour to understand Skolem's paradox {{while}} von Neumann instantly recognized the importance of the results, but he reacted with scepticism about the possibility of overcoming the weakness of axiomatizations they reveal. [H.-D. Ebbinghaus: "Ernst Zermelo: An approach to his life and work", Springer (2007) p. 200]
>
> The adaptation of strong axioms of infinity is thus a theological venture, involving basic questions of belief concerning what is true about the universe. [A. Kanamori, M. Magidor: "The evolution of large cardinal axioms in set theory" in G.H. Müller und D.S. Scott (eds.): "Higher set theory", Springer, Berlin (1978) p. 104]
>
> The clear understanding of formalism in mathematics has led to a rather fixed dogmatic position which reads: Mathematics is what can be done within axiomatic set theory using classical predicate logic. I call this doctrine the Grand Set Theoretic Foundation. [...] It is my contention that this Grand Set Theoretic Foundation is a mistakenly one-sided view of mathematics and also that its precursor doctrine (Dedekind cuts) was also one-sided. [....] Second, set theory is largely irrelevant to the practice of most mathematics. Most professional mathematicians never have occasion to use the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms, while others do not even know them. [S. Mac Lane: "Mathematical models: A sketch for the philosophy of mathematics", The American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 88,7 (1981) p. 467f]
>
> A system of finite mathematics is proposed that has all of the power of classical mathematics. [S. Lavine: "Finite mathematics", Synthese 103,3 (1995) p. 389]
>
> Regards, WM

Mostowski Collapse wrote:

> You sound like Dan-O-Matik, defending his own DC poop.
> Only DC poop can be fixed, whereas your psychosis cannot be fixed.

You capitalists are so stupid, is it Omega or Omicron?? There are no
"tests" for testing for Omegas, covid_19 and everything. Are you fucking
idiots? No covid_19 "virus" is ever isolated and proven to cause
illnesses. Why am I feeling you mathematicians are stupid??

On 11/27/2021 1:15 PM, Brigdare Doss wrote:
> Mostowski Collapse wrote:
>
>> You sound like Dan-O-Matik, defending his own DC poop.
>> Only DC poop can be fixed, whereas your psychosis cannot be fixed.
>
> You capitalists are so stupid, is it Omega or Omicron?? There are no
> "tests" for testing for Omegas, covid_19 and everything. Are you fucking
> idiots? No covid_19 "virus" is ever isolated and proven to cause
> illnesses. Why am I feeling you mathematicians are stupid??
>

Line up, you Proletariat Scum for your shot of infectious Omicron, grown from the cells from Joe Bidens scalp

O-micron, synonym for micro penis.
The most impotent mutation ever.

Brigdare Doss schrieb am Samstag, 27. November 2021 um 20:15:51 UTC+1:
> Mostowski Collapse wrote:
>
> > You sound like Dan-O-Matik, defending his own DC poop.
> > Only DC poop can be fixed, whereas your psychosis cannot be fixed.
> You capitalists are so stupid, is it Omega or Omicron?? There are no
> "tests" for testing for Omegas, covid_19 and everything. Are you fucking
> idiots? No covid_19 "virus" is ever isolated and proven to cause
> illnesses. Why am I feeling you mathematicians are stupid??

Serg io wrote:

> On 11/27/2021 1:15 PM, Brigdare Doss wrote:
>> Mostowski Collapse wrote:
>>
>>> You sound like Dan-O-Matik, defending his own DC poop.
>>> Only DC poop can be fixed, whereas your psychosis cannot be fixed.
>>
>> You capitalists are so stupid, is it Omega or Omicron?? There are no
>> "tests" for testing for Omegas, covid_19 and everything. Are you
>> fucking idiots? No covid_19 "virus" is ever isolated and proven to
>> cause illnesses. Why am I feeling you mathematicians are stupid??
>
> Line up, you Proletariat Scum for your shot of infectious Omicron, grown
> from the cells from Joe Bidens scalp

the bidans are big capitalists, you fucking idiot. They stole millions
from the poorest country in europe, Ukraine. Just to say the least. And
now are promoting big_pharma, which use to be *strictly_illegal* in many
countries years ago. You could NOT come on TV and promote big_pharma. You
cretin.

Mostowski Collapse wrote:

> O-micron, synonym for micro penis.The most impotent mutation ever.

the mostoske, the self declared imbecile in the world. Listen here, what
these *war_criminals* are saying, year 2008:

Bill Gates and Klaus Schwab discussed future public health goals at DAVOS
2008 https://www.bitchute.com/video/GhwhOBjYj1Wf/

bill gaytes: "population reduction (through vaccines) is a good thing"

go out and arrest them, mostoske.
> Brigdare Doss schrieb am Samstag, 27. November 2021 um 20:15:51 UTC+1:
>> Mostowski Collapse wrote:
>>
>> > You sound like Dan-O-Matik, defending his own DC poop.
>> > Only DC poop can be fixed, whereas your psychosis cannot be fixed.
>> You capitalists are so stupid, is it Omega or Omicron?? There are no
>> "tests" for testing for Omegas, covid_19 and everything. Are you
>> fucking idiots? No covid_19 "virus" is ever isolated and proven to
>> cause illnesses. Why am I feeling you mathematicians are stupid??

lördag 27 november 2021 kl. 11:18:48 UTC+1 skrev WM:
> I think that it is worthwhile to argue with the Cantorians. The arguments presented by the non-Cantorians do not have to influence all of Cantorians: it is enough to influence just a few, even one or two. [B. Hale in "Cantor's perpetual fallacy", sci.math (28 Nov 1999)]
>
> Fraenkel was not sure about the correctness of the proof of the Löwenheim-Skolem theorem, and he seems to have had difficulties in analysing the role of logic with sufficient rigour to understand Skolem's paradox {{while}} von Neumann instantly recognized the importance of the results, but he reacted with scepticism about the possibility of overcoming the weakness of axiomatizations they reveal. [H.-D. Ebbinghaus: "Ernst Zermelo: An approach to his life and work", Springer (2007) p. 200]
>
> The adaptation of strong axioms of infinity is thus a theological venture, involving basic questions of belief concerning what is true about the universe. [A. Kanamori, M. Magidor: "The evolution of large cardinal axioms in set theory" in G.H. Müller und D.S. Scott (eds.): "Higher set theory", Springer, Berlin (1978) p. 104]
>
> The clear understanding of formalism in mathematics has led to a rather fixed dogmatic position which reads: Mathematics is what can be done within axiomatic set theory using classical predicate logic. I call this doctrine the Grand Set Theoretic Foundation. [...] It is my contention that this Grand Set Theoretic Foundation is a mistakenly one-sided view of mathematics and also that its precursor doctrine (Dedekind cuts) was also one-sided. [....] Second, set theory is largely irrelevant to the practice of most mathematics. Most professional mathematicians never have occasion to use the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms, while others do not even know them. [S. Mac Lane: "Mathematical models: A sketch for the philosophy of mathematics", The American Mathematical Monthly, Vol. 88,7 (1981) p. 467f]
>
> A system of finite mathematics is proposed that has all of the power of classical mathematics. [S. Lavine: "Finite mathematics", Synthese 103,3 (1995) p. 389]
>
> Regards, WM

There is no theology, and "matheology" is not a thing, you are a fucking crank.