Re: The Time Deniers and the idea of time as a "dimension"

From: Russell Standish <r.standish.domain.name.hidden>
Date: Fri, 15 Jul 2005 06:33:01 +1000

No, because I wasn't talking about artificially imposed orderings. One
can always define a strict ordering by means of something like

x < y iff Re(x) < Re(y) or Re(x)=Re(y) and Im(x)<Im(y)

However, the usual meaning of x<y for x,y \in C is undefined, except
for x,y real.

I think the previous poster used the term "natural ordering", I just
dropped the adjective "natural", as being unnecessary for the
discussion.

Cheer

On Wed, Jul 13, 2005 at 12:15:01PM +0200, Bruno Marchal wrote:
>
> Le 13-juil.-05, ? 06:02, Russell Standish a ?crit :
>
>
> >Complex numbers indeed do not have an ordering (being basically
> > points on a plane)
>
>
> So you pretend the axiom of choice is false. It is easy to build an
> ordering of the complex numbers through it.
>
> There is no ordering *which satisfies some algebraic desiderata*. But
> as a set, you can always ordered it (given that the axiom of choice is
> consistent with ZF).
>
> Bruno
>
>
> http://iridia.ulb.ac.be/~marchal/

-- 
*PS: A number of people ask me about the attachment to my email, which
is of type "application/pgp-signature". Don't worry, it is not a
virus. It is an electronic signature, that may be used to verify this
email came from me if you have PGP or GPG installed. Otherwise, you
may safely ignore this attachment.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------
A/Prof Russell Standish                  Phone 8308 3119 (mobile)
Mathematics                         	       0425 253119 (")
UNSW SYDNEY 2052         	         R.Standish.domain.name.hidden             
Australia                                http://parallel.hpc.unsw.edu.au/rks
            International prefix  +612, Interstate prefix 02
----------------------------------------------------------------------------

Received on Thu Jul 14 2005 - 19:37:21 PDT