I have probably done as much work in set theory, number theory, mathematical logic, and mathematical economics as anyone on this board. The use of “quantitative” was entirely appropriate, but it is pointless to continue a discussion with someone who thinks that the now much discussed sentence constitutes a useful claim, mathematically or otherwise, or that the author’s brief, undisciplined romp through 800 years of history is to be taken with the same seriousness as Friedman’s and Swartz’s work on economic history.
I have my doubts that you've done "work" but that is unimportant. The question was not and is not your persona and what it did and did not do in life. I addressed a completely nonsensical statement you've made. In reply you've brought everything you could possibly name without even an attempt at reasoning; mo implications, just new claims, no matter how unrelated. The level of logic you exhibited is below that of a sophomore: you don't know that that you don't know. I am referring to what you wrote in the posts on this thread and nothing more. If outside of this thread you exhibit brilliant logical abilities, your "work" in number theory won you the Fields medal and your "work" in mathematical economics won you a Nobel --- I am only happy for you.
But this is my last attempt to clarify the issue: I am not interested in your persona and care little about your Fields medal and your Nobel prize. Here, on this thread you posed a totally nonsensical claim and when asked to support it only made more nonsensical claims. Moving the target in a discussion is the last resort of a scoundrel.
Should you decide to be intellectually honest on some other thread, let's have a discussion. But this one is over.