The Math Forum

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

Advanced Search

Back to Topic List Back to Topic List Jump to Tree View Jump to Tree View   Messages: [ Previous | Next ]
Jürgen R.

Posts: 60
Registered: 7/5/11
Re: Matheology § 063
Posted: Jul 8, 2012 9:56 AM
  Click to see the message monospaced in plain text Plain Text   Click to reply to this topic Reply

"WM" <> schrieb im Newsbeitrag
> On 8 Jul., 15:09, Jürgen R. <> wrote:
>> "WM" <> 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

Point your RSS reader here for a feed of the latest messages in this topic.

[Privacy Policy] [Terms of Use]

© The Math Forum at NCTM 1994-2018. All Rights Reserved.