Skip to main content
History of Science and Mathematics

You are not logged in. Your edit will be placed in a queue until it is peer reviewed.

We welcome edits that make the post easier to understand and more valuable for readers. Because community members review edits, please try to make the post substantially better than how you found it, for example, by fixing grammar or adding additional resources and hyperlinks.

Required fields*

8
  • 2
    $\begingroup$ I vote for closing this question, what do you want that is not already in that article? $\endgroup$ Commented yesterday
  • 3
    $\begingroup$ @Mauricio, you seem to be assuming that the article is accurate. It may well be; I have not read it. But Quanta Magazine is notorious for being sensationalist at times. Therefore your assumption is merely a hypothesis (possible a correct one!). That's what the OP is asking about. There could be other reasons to close this question but your objection does not seem to be one of them. $\endgroup$ Commented yesterday
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ @MikhailKatz I agree that Quanta is sensationalist. Nevertheless the user should provide a more precise question, citing the article and asking for verification of specific points would be adequate for everybody. We should avoid users just dumping a document and asking "is is true"? $\endgroup$ Commented yesterday
  • 5
    $\begingroup$ I read the paper. My opinion on Cantor and Dedekind did not change. But my opinion on Quanta Magazine changed dramatically: I lost all respect to them. $\endgroup$ Commented yesterday
  • 4
    $\begingroup$ @Georg Essl: on my opinion, this Quanta publication needs a refutation, and this place is as good as any for this purpose. $\endgroup$ Commented yesterday