In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 19 Jun., 14:12, Peter Percival <peterxperci...@hotmail.com> wrote: > > mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de wrote: > > > > > Look: Zermelo has "proved" that the real numbers can be well-ordered. But > > > it has been proved that the real numbers in fact cannot be well-ordered. > > > That is as certain as that you cannot get a 13 with two dice. > > > > I think you're confusing two different results. There are models of ZFC > > in which a well-ordering is a not definable. That does not mean that R > > cannot be well ordered, > > No, ZFC does not mean anything. It is simply fact that uncountably > many reals cannot be names
In fact numbers are not names at all. Names of numbers are like pointers to numbers but are not the numbers pointed to or identified by those names.
> That is as factual as that you cannot get a 33 in roulette.
It may be that the roulette wheels in Wolkenmuekenheim do not allow 33 to come up, but everywhere else there is a 33 on the wheel which comes up on a long term average of once every 37 times in european casinos or once every 38 times in USA casinos.
> Therefore > scientists are very sceptical when a matheolgian announces that he has > "proved" something. In general it is rubbish.
A good deal les rubbishy that a roulette wheel rigged never to come up 33. --