>>13294848>yes the diagonal proofWell, in that case what you said never happened.
>That's essentially what he said, isn't it? No. You are misinformed. He objected to the theological nature of Cantor's foundations, but he recognized the diagonal argument as sound given that framework. His objections were never aimed at the diagonal argument, but at the unrestricted use of the completed infinite as a proper mathematical object.
>though the only one I've listened to very much is wildbergerWildberger never said such a thing.
