Skip to main content
added 142 characters in body
Source Link
Chris Eagle
  • 901
  • 1
  • 8
  • 8

No. If this were true, then ZF would prove that "every set can be totally ordered" implies "every set can be well-ordered", which (assuming ZF is consistent) it doesn't. I can't find the original citation for this nonimplication, but it's in Howard and Rubin's "Consequences of the Axiom of Choice" for example.

No. If this were true, then ZF would prove that "every set can be totally ordered" implies "every set can be well-ordered", which (assuming ZF is consistent) it doesn't.

No. If this were true, then ZF would prove that "every set can be totally ordered" implies "every set can be well-ordered", which (assuming ZF is consistent) it doesn't. I can't find the original citation for this nonimplication, but it's in Howard and Rubin's "Consequences of the Axiom of Choice" for example.

Source Link
Chris Eagle
  • 901
  • 1
  • 8
  • 8

No. If this were true, then ZF would prove that "every set can be totally ordered" implies "every set can be well-ordered", which (assuming ZF is consistent) it doesn't.