To Likebox One does not need to depend on Cantors philosophy in order to judge that AP has no coherent mathematical theory at all  To take one recent example he has concluded that epi  i   because i    But in any case this isnt a referendum on the quality of APs work  My questions are the following  Is it reasonable to revive a recently deleted page when there is no new argument for notability  Is it reasonable to write about APs 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 APs theory or would this violate Undue Weight    But I dont know that  matters since I think the answer to  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 APs contributions  Yes unusual constructions of numbers are interesting say Conways 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