
Re: Matheology § 223: AC and AMS
Posted:
Mar 17, 2013 4:05 PM


WM wrote:
> On 17 Mrz., 07:49, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: >> On 3/16/2013 1:25 PM, WM wrote: >> >> > On 16 Mrz., 18:17, fom <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote: >> >> > An additional remark: >> >> >> No. Zermelo's AC requires that one name can be written >> >> with certainty. >> >> > This statement is not Zermelo's original statement. It can be proven >> > to hold, iff it was possible to choose, in practice, one element from >> > every subset of T. If this was doable. >> >> Well, the critical investigation of the >> statement during the twentieth century >> resulted in taking it as an axiom. >> >> Its provability is not the criterion >> by which it is to be understood. >> >> >> >> > There have been many mathematicians criticizing Zermelo's axiom >> > (Borel, Peano, Poincaré and others). Zermelo discusses a lot of >> > objections in another 1908 paper. And the most amazing fact is, that >> > at that time none of the arguments aims at the fact, that there are >> > only countably many choices possible by theoretical reasons. >> >> > Zermelo agrees that the AC is not provable. He did not know, at that >> > time, that it is disprovable by theoretical mathematics. >> >> Disprovable by belief, perhaps. > > Zermelo created the axiom of choice because it was obvious to him that > is is correct, i.e., that his choice can be done, at least in > principle.
So he first found its correctness obvious, and then he created it? You are even too stupid to wellorder a simple sequence of events. Children of kindergarten age are expected, and usually able, to do this. > Then he went on and "proved" from this axiom the well > ordering theorem. If he had known that the axiom of choice can be > disproved by proving that at most countably many choiced can be > executed, even in principle, why should he have used it? With same > counterfactuality he could have inveted the axiom: Every set has a > wellordering.
And you believe that you can say anything about wellordering an infinite set on the basis of your inability to wellorder a twoelement set? Your crap reaches hitherto unknown levels of stupidity every day.

