
Re: Effect of gravitation in set theory
Posted:
Nov 22, 2011 12:47 PM


On 22 Nov., 14:22, Tonico <Tonic...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> I'm afraid he didn't even understand what Jürgen was trying to tell > him...jesu!
But I am not afraid that you will understand what I quote here:
================================================== Tonico: Just please note what you wrote above: "...is wrong because IR for instance cannot be well ordered, it can only be proved that it can wellordered"... Do you really think that ANYONE aspiring to be taken seriously can allow himself to write down this kind of nonsense, WM??
WM: Will you stay by your word? Of course you will not. You just accused set theory to be nonsense.
Tonico: OTOH, I may GUESS that what you REALLY wanted to say is that IR isn't, and has not been so far, well ordered, and thatd be, I think, correct, but this is NOT even close to what you actually wrote, which is a huge stupidity from any point of view.
============================================
I wrote exactly what set theory says. Wellordering is proven possible (using the axioms of ZFC) by Zermelo, but proven impossible (using the axioms of ZFC) by Feferman and by the fact, that nobody succeeded in over 100 years.
If you are a mathematician, then, we see, there are mathematicians who have not the least knowledge of set theory, but fight for it with all their power.
Regards, WM

