Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
Drexel University or The Math Forum.
|
|
|
|
Re: Matheology § 063
Posted:
Jul 8, 2012 9:56 AM
|
|
"WM" <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
news:fff38efe-84cc-4962-a760-819db8f29073@k5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com...
> 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
|
|
|
|
