CronoDAS comments on Harry Potter and the Methods of Rationality discussion thread, part 8 - Less Wrong

8 Post author: Unnamed 25 August 2011 02:17AM

You are viewing a comment permalink. View the original post to see all comments and the full post content.

Comments (653)

You are viewing a single comment's thread. Show more comments above.

Comment author: XiXiDu 07 September 2011 08:33:03AM 3 points [-]

The following is a comment by John Baez, posted on Google+ where I linked to this thread:

It's indeed hard to believe, at a gut level, in the existence of a well-ordered uncountable set. For example: can you take the set of real numbers and linearly order them in some funny way such that any decreasing sequence of them, say a > b > c > ..., "bottoms out" after finitely many steps? (Here > is defined in the funny way you've chosen.) Nobody knows an explicit way to do this, and you can prove that nobody ever will. Yet the "well-ordering theorem" says you can do it:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Well-ordering_theorem

What's the catch? This theorem is equivalent to the Axiom of Choice, which cannot be proved (or disproved!) from the rest of the Zermelo-Fraenkel axioms of set theory.

So, we may decide to disbelieve in the Axiom of Choice. But there are other ways of stating it, which make it sound obviously true.

Comment author: CronoDAS 07 September 2011 10:58:36AM 9 points [-]

"The Axiom of Choice is obviously true, the well-ordering principle obviously false, and who can tell about Zorn's lemma?"

— Jerry Bona