Re: Well Ordering the Reals

In article <MPG.1dd15ad9caf3df8a98a5ca@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Tony Orlow <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Russell said:
> > Daryl McCullough wrote:
> >
> > [snip]
> >
> > > Hilbert wondered whether the reals could be well-ordered.
> >
> > Wouldn't such a well-ordering have to be complicated enough
> > that it couldn't be used to decide CH? (Since CH is undecidable,
> > right?) It's hard for me to imagine how a well-ordering of the
> > reals could be specified in any book of finite length while still
> > leaving CH undecided.
> >
> >
> Did you look at my web page?

Since TO starts with a whole raft of conditions contrary to fact, there
is no need to punish oneself perusing such garbage.
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Cantors proof
    ... Dave Seaman says... ... or via "A set is finite if there is a well-ordering of the set such ... Why are you arguing this point? ... Daryl McCullough ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Constructibility of X -> X^2 bijection
    ... Daryl McCullough wrote: ... B iff and A contains the smallest element in the symmetric difference of A ... and B. Exercise: Show this is a well-ordering of Pwithout reference to ... contradicting the claim that it is a well-ordering. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Well Ordering the Reals
    ... Daryl McCullough wrote: ... > Hilbert wondered whether the reals could be well-ordered. ... Wouldn't such a well-ordering have to be complicated enough ...
    (sci.math)