sci.physics.particle

On Aug 20, 5:18 am, " . Sommers" wrote:
> Autymn D. C. wrote:
> > On Aug 11, 2:33 am, " . Sommers" wrote:
> >>Al in Dallas wrote:
> >>>On Fri, 10 Aug 2007 12:35:37 +1000, "Jeckyl"
> >>>wrote:
>
> >>>>That doesn't mean there is a smallest one that is greater than zero
>
> >>>What else could "well-ordered" mean? Isn't that part of the definition
> >>>of "well-ordered"?
>
> >>Yes, it is, but the reals are not well-ordered. The proof that
> >>there is no smallest positive real is trivial. Assume the
> >>contrary, that there is some smallest positive real, q. Now
> >>consider q/10. This is also a positive real, and it is smaller
> >>than q.
>
> > That's not a proof at all. If there's a smallest real q, one cannot
> > consider any q/10 because there be no q/10.
>
> Don't be silly.

In her defense, she isn't trying to be silly - she is quite insane.
She must have been just let back out of the asylum.

>
> --
> Thomas M. Sommers -- t...@ -- AB2SB- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -