She was claiming something more fundamental (and less sophisticated) than that. Nigel Boston and Andrew Granville wrote a review [1] of her book that distills some of the problems with her argument. A sample quote:
> In fact, her central theme is that non-Euclidean geometry, and indeed any mathematics related to non-Euclidean geometry, is nonsense.
> In fact, her central theme is that non-Euclidean geometry, and indeed any mathematics related to non-Euclidean geometry, is nonsense.
[1]: http://www.dms.umontreal.ca/~andrew/PDF/VS.pdf