In article <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org wrote:
> On Wednesday, 12 June 2013 02:06:39 UTC+2, Zeit Geist wrote: > > > I doubt, WM can prove his A then B then A then ... algorithm satisfies that > > requirement. I will working proving it can't. ZG > > I doubt I want to "prove" that. I have "proved" that all rationals can be > ordered by size "if they all exist".
You have not proved any such thing.
Note that every finite ordered set is trivially well-ordered, and failure to be well ordered implies actual infiniteness, and WM's argument fails unless every set is actually finite, which is not the case outside of Wolkenmuekenheim.
> This yields a contradiction. Why prove > anything else on that obviously broken basis?
Note that in the absence of any actually infinite sets, every ordered set is necessarily well-ordered.
And every infinite sequence is actually finite, and must thus have a last member.
Thus, while WM's argument may hold inside WMytheology, it does not hold anywhere else. --