>>11931252>I define the reals by an operation on the reals, even though I need to define the reals before the operation so this is just a total sham of a definition>Why do all of you niggers always say, "You're wrong," but never say (1) why you think I'm wrong, and (2) an alternative which you think is correct?Youre wrong
(1) You're definitions are circular, nonsensical and not coherent
(2) Just use the actual fucking definition of the real numbers, like we've been telling you to do FOR YEARS
CAUCHY SEQUENCES, DEDEKIND CUTS, SOMETHING ACTUALLY DEFINED
>Once again, you display the weakness of your argument by saying that my thing is not a set but not saying why you believe it fails to conform to the definition of a set, and then you say some other thing with exotic notation is what a set really looks like but do not define your exotic notation.Once again, you display the weakness of your argument by saying that your thing is a set but not even using proper setbuilder notation. You cant universally quantify shit in a set
You cant have a set defined by {x | P(x) }, thats only a Proper Class, you must have a set defined by {x in B | P(x) }, unrestricted comprehension isnt allowable in sets.
But even before that, you define the reals, with an ordering on the reals, that doesnt work for myriads of reasons you dumb nigger
less than sub B is just a generic name for an order, ON A SET B, you cant define an order without a set to define it on, which is why you cant use less than, in the definition of the reals
>Do you see how it makes you look stupid compared to me when I go to some length to clarify the "less than" relation even when everyone already knows what it meansyou still need to actually define it you retard
>everyone knows what it means, thats why my version differs from the actual one>and you introduce the "less than sub B" relation which most people, myself included, have never seen, and also don't define the relation?>never seen generic names 
