`  ::: To Likebox: One does not need to depend on Cantor's philosophy in order to judge that AP has no coherent mathematical theory at all.  To take one recent example: he has concluded that e^(pi * i) = 1 because i = 0.  But, in any case, this isn't a referendum on the quality of AP's work.  My questions are the following: (1) Is it reasonable to revive a recently deleted page when there is no new argument for notability? (2) Is it reasonable to write about AP's mathematics without an explicit acknowledgment that neither AP nor anyone else has never given a coherent description of his theory?  That is, does BLP require ignoring existing (on Usenet) criticism of AP's theory, or would this violate Undue Weight?   ::: But I don't know that (2) matters, since I think the answer to (1) is ``no``.    ::: Finally, in passing, I dispute your claim that set theorists and logicians regard the integers as very difficult to define or that they welcome AP's contributions.  Yes, unusual constructions of numbers are interesting (say, Conway's work), but what AP has written about is much too confused to count as a contribution.  And even if people become interested in infinite digit strings, it would be doubtful in the extreme that AP contributed significantly to that interest, much less contributed to a foundation of such structures.  But, of course, this aside is irrelevant to the real issues here.  `