Search All of the Math Forum:

Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by NCTM or The Math Forum.

Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.

Topic: Matheology § 291
Replies: 28   Last Post: Jun 19, 2013 5:29 PM

 Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
 Virgil Posts: 8,833 Registered: 1/6/11
Re: Matheology � 291
Posted: Jun 17, 2013 3:46 PM

mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote:

> On Monday, 17 June 2013 07:43:58 UTC+2, Zeit Geist wrote:
> > In some systems consisting of ZFC + Some "Large Cardinal Axiom" CH, even
> > GHC, can be proved or disproved. Perhaps Godel foresaw the coming power of
> > Inner Model Theory and Descriptive Set Theory.

>
> In some axiom systems it is possible to prove that the reals can be
> well-ordered,

Like in WM's pseudo-system, since there every set, thus every ordered
set, is finite and thus well-ordered.

> in other axiom-systems it is possible to prove that the reals
> cannot be well-ordered.

> This shows that these "proofs" are nonsense

It only proves that different sets of assumptions lead to different
conclusions, which, at least outside of WM's wild weird world of
WMytheology, is obvious.

And not every system outside of WMytheology fits one and the same set of
assumptions.

> The question is simply whether the reals can be well-ordered or not.

Since the form of "the reals" depends on which of many versions of set
theory one assumed, as well as one's definition of the set of reals,
whether the set of reals can be well ordered depends on which set theory
and definition.

Every standard definition for the reals, as a complete Archimedean
ordered field, requires it to be uncountably infinite and dense, from
which its non-well-ordering easily follows.

We have yet to see any definition by WM of the reals that is compatible
with its being a complete Archimedean ordered field.

And WM is certainly totally incapable of providing one.
--