Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- From: Tony Orlow <aeo6@xxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: Thu, 17 Nov 2005 12:06:57 -0500
Robert Low said:
> MoeBlee wrote:
> > Tony Orlow wrote:
> >>If there are
> >>no limit ordinals
> > If we add the assumption that there are no limit ordinals then you've
> > made set theory inconsistent.
>
> You could do ZF with the axiom of infinity replaced by its negation.
> You wouldn't have limit ordinals then...
>
Bt that is just a statement of the inductive definition of an infinite set of
successions. That is the part I'd like to see preserved, such that every
identifiable element has an identifiable predecessor. Myabe I am
misunderstanding which part of the axiom you wish to negate? Certainly you
aren't suggesting a change to say such a set does not exist?
--
Smiles,
Tony
http://www.people.cornell.edu/pages/aeo6/WellOrder/
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- From: Virgil
- Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- References:
- Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- From: Tony Orlow
- Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- From: Randy Poe
- Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- From: Tony Orlow
- Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- From: Randy Poe
- Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- From: Tony Orlow
- Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- From: Tony Orlow
- Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- From: Tony Orlow
- Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- From: Daryl McCullough
- Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- From: Tony Orlow
- Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- From: MoeBlee
- Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- From: Robert Low
- Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- Prev by Date: Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- Next by Date: Re: The Reidemeister-Schreier Rewriting Process
- Previous by thread: Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- Next by thread: Re: Well Ordering the Reals
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
Loading