uncool

Then why do photons act like particles with respect to the photoelectric effect (among other things)? Wave/particle duality deals (or originally dealt) with two experiments. One in which photons consistently act like waves, one in which they consistently act like particles.

None. Which is the point.

No, but only those with physics degrees are likely to have new and useful ideas about physics. And when multiple people with physics degrees tell you that you are misunderstanding physics, you are almost certainly misunderstanding physics.

Then assemble them in a readable fashion. As wtf has observed, you have taken back and reiterated and modified your claimed proof to the point that it is impossible to tell what form it takes now. So please: Write your proof out, in one post, with no handwaving. We have asked you to do this repeatedly. You have not done so. No. We dismiss what you are saying because the claimed proofs you use to support your claims are wrong. They have fatal errors. These fatal errors cannot be remedied by "visualizing them".

Then you aren't asking for our POV, you are dictating.

Again: imposing an idiosyncratic definition.

I already have. To spell it out more clearly: You are attempting to impose an idiosyncratic definition of "observation" that does not match how it is used by physicists, and then spinning the refusal to accept your idiosyncratic definition as if it means they must be hiding something.

Again, are you asking for our POV or dictating?

Are you asking for POV, or dictating it?

And what, precisely, is the claimed result? You have had several trains of thought, and I have pointed out specific issues in each of them. My main issues are meta-issues: you are often unwilling to deal with questions with the necessary precision, and you are often too willing to handwave the key parts in your claimed proofs. Both of which are why wtf and I are constantly asking you to write out your precise proof. That sense is correct; they are defined to be well-ordered. I don't know which ordering you are referring to; however, if you are still claiming that there cannot be a well-order on the real numbers, then telling us that a specific ordering isn't a well-ordering is not informative. A request for you: what is the precise statement you think you have proven, and what is the precise proof of that statement?

The conclusion with the continuum hypothesis is that it was independent of the other axioms. That is, that ZFC + CH is consistent, and ZFC + ~CH is consistent. The closest analog here would be that ZFC + AoC is consistent, and ZFC + ~AoC is consistent. Which is true, but doesn't match what you've claimed - your claims seem to say that there is an inconsistency. So yet again, I have to ask: what, precisely, do you mean?

Then I ask again: what, precisely, do you mean?

What, precisely, do you mean by that? Do you mean that there are statements about the usual order relation on the reals that cannot apply to a well-ordering?

Please try to correct your quoting; you have put your response as if I said it. I know, the quoting software for this forum is awful, but it's hard to tell what you are responding to. If you want to claim it, then yes, you will have to prove it. And if by "denseness in the reals", you mean "between any two reals (as defined by any order <*), there is another real", then you will be trying to prove a false statement. I have explained what I thought is wrong rather explicitly each time. If you want me to do so again, then post a proof - in full, no handwaving - and I will see.

Presumably, they no longer are unrelated, then? Otherwise, how do you ensure that two "unrelated" waves have the same phase?

What is this program supposed to do?

So what is your current proof, then?

Whatever it is you're trying to claim, you have to prove it. You can't handwave it with "this should be allowed in our meta math system."

If by "might", you mean it happens in some orders, then yes, I agree. But you seem to be claiming this must be true for all orders, and that's something you'll have to prove (in fact, it's false), so no, I do not agree.

Um. You mean literally 3 years after (what would soon become) Germany declared war for control of the duchies of Schleswig and Holstein - and won?

What does "this" refer to? A "fairly well respected mathematician" writing the same things you have would not be taken seriously, and would rather quickly become a disrespected mathematician. You should be working on explaining your proof clearly and precisely (which you still have not done); being taken seriously is a result of that.

I know that if you are given z, then {x: z<* x}, and {x: z ≤*x} are different; I don't know that for all orders <*, {x: z1<* x} can't be written as {x: z2 ≤*x}, no - in fact, I sincerely doubt it. And "I'm sure you know that" is another example of this: Stop saying things like "I'm sure you know that", and start examining those parts closely.

Why not?

Um. Yes, you do, if you want claim you have proved that the reals cannot be well-ordered.

It is a scientific statement, which (as you have said) has been falsified. In this terminology, "scientific" does not mean "confirmed". It's approximately equivalent to saying that a sentence is grammatically correct - the content may be true or false, but it satisfies certain rules about the sentence itself.