Re: Well Ordering the Reals

Tony Orlow says...
>
>stevendar yl3016@xxxxxxxxx (Daryl McCullough) said:
>> What you have written is *incoherent* nonsense. It doesn't
>> have anything to do with being "contrary to the general
>> world view". As I have pointed out repeatedly there are
>> *many* different points of view about mathematics,
>> Platonism, formalism, constructivism, intuitionism.
>> There's nonstandard analysis, there's Conway's surreal
>> numbers, there's Quine's New Foundations, there's Aczel's
>> non-well-founded set theory. These different theories don't
>> conform to a single world view. But what they have in common
>> is that they are *coherent*, and the consequences of these
>> different starting points are worked out rigorously. I have
>> nothing but respect for someone who comes up with a new
>> and rigorous way to look at things.

>I am proud of what I have done here over the last year, yes.

Well, then you are a self-deluded fool. You have done
nothing over the last year expect spout garbage.

>Would it be nice if more people could understand it?

It is garbage. There is no such thing as understanding
it. You don't even understand it, which is the reason
why you keep contradicting yourself: Sometimes you say
there is no largest finite natural number. Sometimes you say
that there is a largest finite natural number but it is
not well-defined.

>Now, I have created a well ordering of the reals.

No, you have deluded yourself into thinking that
you have a well ordering. But it isn't one.

>What is your objection to it?

I've already given you my objection. Your ordering
has infinite descending chains.

--
Daryl McCullough
Ithaca, NY

.