Re: Well Ordering the Reals

Daryl McCullough wrote:
Tony Orlow says...
If one can, as you did, select an infinite element, can form a set by considering elements finitely less than that element, then any "uncountable" set has subsets which are "infinite" descending chains. 
So you are saying that no uncountable set can be well-ordered.
So you *don't* claim to have a well-ordering for the reals?


Wouldn't that admission require him to admit that the
reals aren't countable? (I can't tell any more...)
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Well Ordering the Reals
    ... Daryl McCullough wrote: ... > that the list was *not* the complete set of all reals. ... > Every standard real can be specified using a countably infinite ... portion and the non-integer portion. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Well Ordering the Reals
    ... considering elements finitely less than that element, then any "uncountable" set has subsets which are "infinite" descending chains. ... So you *don't* claim to have a well-ordering for the reals? ... notice that all the strings he lists are well-defined infinite binary strings. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Well Ordering the Reals
    ... > Daryl McCullough said: ... >> You can prove that fis well-defined for every infinite bitstring ... >> or infinite) bitstring s. ... > set covers the reals, at least given infinite bit strings. ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Cantors "proof"
    ... just merge all the lists together into ... >> merge them into a single list of reals. ... merge, then diagonalize an infinite number of times, then merge, ... Daryl McCullough ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Calculus XOR Probability
    ... If a quantitative set is mapped in ascending order from the naturals, ... number of reals on the line. ... to the subsequent logic that claims such a set cannot have infinite values. ... standard orderings, since sets in general don't come with little tags ...
    (sci.math)