Re: Well Ordering the Reals

Robert Low said:
> 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...)
>
IF Daryl's infinite descending chain is valid in standard mathematics, which I
guess it's not, since it uses MY non-standard infinite bitstrings. Hmmm...
--
Smiles,

Tony
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/aeo6/WellOrder/
.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Well Ordering the Reals
    ... >> Tony Orlow says... ... >> Daryl McCullough ... > variable which can assume infinite values. ... nug tnahpele knip a htiw ti toohs dna knip seog ti litnu eson sti ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Well Ordering the Reals
    ... Daryl McCullough said: ... > Tony Orlow says... ... You HAVE no definition for number of elements for infinite sets. ... > Ithaca, NY ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: infinity
    ... >> Tony Orlow says... ... finite or infinite. ... Daryl McCullough ... Prev by Date: ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: infinity
    ... Daryl McCullough said: ... > Tony Orlow says... ... the set is unbounded but not infinite. ... > What is the size of the set of all finite naturals? ...
    (sci.math)
  • Re: Well Ordering the Reals
    ... > Tony Orlow wrote: ... >> For comparing sets formulaically, when they cannot be directly measured due to ... > every member of a set B, ... > whether the sets are finite or infinite, because it works for all sets. ...
    (sci.math)