"WM" <email@example.com> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:firstname.lastname@example.org... > On 8 Jul., 15:09, Jürgen R. <jurg...@arcor.de> wrote: >> "WM" <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> schrieb im >> >> You have found an error in Zermelo's proof? >> >> > Yes, even that. He uses the phrase: "Wäre m' das erste Element, in dem >> > sich M'_gamma von M''_gamma unterscheidet..." >> > So he assumes and presupposes well-ordering when attempting to prove >> > that every set can be well-ordered. > >> It goes almost without saying that you are wrong. Moreover, >> you demonstrate, once again, your inability to understand >> the structure of a simple proof. >> >> Of course Zermelo does not assume what he is attempting >> to prove. The sets M'_gamma and M''_gamma that Z. is >> talking about *are* well-ordered. > > If there are uncountable well-ordered sets, then Zermelo need not > prove it. > Alas he did not know or has forgotten, that ordering requires > identifying. > >> He is not trying to prove that the well-ordered sets M'_gamma >> and M''_gamma are well-ordered. What he is proving is that >> *every* set can be well ordered. > > Then every set has to have a well-ordered gamma-set. But then Zermelo > need not prove that every set can be well-ordered.
This is really embarrassing nonsense. You are making a fool of yourself once again.
>> >> Do you really think that Zermelo, Schmidt and Hilbert were >> so stupid as to overlook such an elementary error?- > > This is an instance of the amazing power of desire in blinding even > very able men to fallacies which would otherwise be obvious at once. > (Russell) > > Why should Russell's sentence fail in this instance? You are a > splendid example: Either you cannot grasp the fact that ordering > requires identifying first, or you are trying to deceive. Other > alternatives are not available.
Russell wasn't talking about amateurs like you being unable to distinguish sound from unsound arguments. > > Regards, WM