> This statement cannot be more wrong. See continuum hypothesis for example. 1) ‘it seems that no mathematician has ever considered this’ would be even more (a

> This statement cannot be more wrong. See continuum hypothesis for example. 1) ‘it seems that no mathematician has ever considered this’ would be even more (and certainly is) wrong, so my statement certainly could be more wrong (if indeed you think it is). 2) The absolute vast majority of mathematicians would struggle to even state the CH. If you’ve personally thought a lot about set theory, I can see why you might view the world otherwise. About ‘professional mathematicians’, I too hesitated before writing that. Perhaps it is the wrong term. What I intended by it was ‘people who do (pure) mathematics for a living’, so basically mathematicians who work at a university and primarily carry out research. ‘Mathematicians’ would not suffice, since that’s an even more vague term used in all sorts of completely different ways. Please suggest a better term if you have one. > Why would you think from this you can draw conclusion about “professional mathematician”? I don’t. My conclusions are drawn from the sample I have, which includes quite a variety of mathematicians I’ve chatted with online and in person. In case it’s the word ‘tutor’ that confused you, it’s worth mentioning that the person in question is a renowned mathematician (and professor, which means something in the UK, unlike in the US) who has been doing research for about four decades. If that’s not ‘pro’ then I don’t know what is. My comment doesn’t directly address the article and isn’t physics-related so I’m sorry if that means I’ve ‘missed the point’. I was just adding something I thought might be of interest to others, and it seems it was.