Date: Apr 12, 2013 2:39 AM
Author: Brian M. Scott
Subject: Re: Problems with Infinity?
On Thu, 11 Apr 2013 22:50:47 -0600, Virgil

<virgil@ligriv.com> wrote in

<news:virgil-2AAC1D.22504511042013@BIGNEWS.USENETMONSTER.COM>

in rec.arts.sf.written,sci.math:

> In article

> <bb3aebb3-658d-4443-9934-d0cb066af67a@q9g2000yqd.googlegroups.com>,

> Butch Malahide <fred.galvin@gmail.com> 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?

Brian