Search All of the Math Forum:
Views expressed in these public forums are not endorsed by
NCTM or The Math Forum.


Math Forum
»
Discussions
»
sci.math.*
»
sci.math
Notice: We are no longer accepting new posts, but the forums will continue to be readable.
Topic:
Matheology § 063
Replies:
11
Last Post:
Jul 8, 2012 4:48 PM




Re: Matheology § 063
Posted:
Jul 8, 2012 9:56 AM


"WM" <mueckenh@rz.fhaugsburg.de> schrieb im Newsbeitrag news:fff38efe84cc4962a760819db8f29073@k5g2000vbf.googlegroups.com... > On 8 Jul., 15:09, Jürgen R. <jurg...@arcor.de> wrote: >> "WM" <mueck...@rz.fhaugsburg.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 wellordering when attempting to prove >> > that every set can be wellordered. > >> 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* wellordered. > > If there are uncountable wellordered 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 wellordered sets M'_gamma >> and M''_gamma are wellordered. What he is proving is that >> *every* set can be well ordered. > > Then every set has to have a wellordered gammaset. But then Zermelo > need not prove that every set can be wellordered.
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



