>>11104466>are the ordinals intuitive enough for you? okay. then well ordering is too.Not all sets are ordinals.
>>11105195>luckily there is one since the axiom of choice is obviously true, take any bijection f between your set and the ordinal>takeYeah, take it.
Axiom: There are ice cold hot liquid solids
>Take any ice cold hot liquid solids. Since it's liquid, we can drink it. Hence, there are solid which one can drink.Yeah, great.
What's "take"?
It is, in any case, a particular instantiation of an with property , and you justify that just from having proven using some axiom. Your axiom turns your whole logic into a framework where math] \exist [/math] is by default non-constructive and you end up making sound claims about liquid solids.
I'm not saying that a theory of liquid solid is an invalid thing to study, but it surely not a good defense of this 100yo dogma.
