Re: Well Ordering the Reals

In article <MPG.1dd1a81d31121cec98a5f8@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx>,
Tony Orlow <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx> wrote:

> Virgil said:
> > 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.
> >
> So, you choose to participate in a conversation in total ignorance of the
> subject matter, deliberately? Screw you, loser. I'll waste no more time on
> you
> then.

Others have described it as garbage. I am more prone to take their word
for it that TO's word for anything.

Since TO posts so much garbage n this NG, I still get more of it than I
have a taste for anyway.
.

Relevant Pages