On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 22:50:47 -0600, Virgil <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in <news:virgil-2AAC1D.22504511042013@BIGNEWS.USENETMONSTER.COM> in rec.arts.sf.written,sci.math:
> In article > <email@example.com>, > Butch Malahide <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
>> On Apr 11, 8:49 pm, Quadibloc <jsav...@ecn.ab.ca> wrote:
>>> However, there is a set known to have cardinality >>> aleph-1, the set of well-orderings of the integers.
>> Well, sort of. Actually, the set of well-orderings of the >> integers has the cardinality of the continuum, which may >> or may not equal aleph_1. It's the set of *order types* >> of well-orderings of the integers that absolutely has >> cardinality aleph_1. That is, you definite an >> equivalence relation on that set of well-orderings, two >> orderings being called equivalent just in case they are >> isomorphic, and the the resulting equivalence classes >> are aleph_1 in number. (That's what you meant, but >> mathematicians make a big deal of saying what you mean >> and meaning what you say.)
> Which rules out WM.
Since I'm reading this in rasfw, would that by any chance be the Augsburger Mücki-bot?