Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.1 6/24/83 (MC840302); site mcvax.UUCP
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!burl!ulysses!mhuxr!mhuxt!houxm!whuxl!whuxlm!harpo!decvax!genrad!mit-eddie!godot!harvard!seismo!mcvax!play
From: play@mcvax.UUCP (Andries Brouwer)
Newsgroups: net.math
Subject: Re: A.C versus A.D.
Message-ID: <539@mcvax.UUCP>
Date: Sun, 17-Mar-85 21:17:34 EST
Article-I.D.: mcvax.539
Posted: Sun Mar 17 21:17:34 1985
Date-Received: Wed, 20-Mar-85 05:02:40 EST
References: <362@talcott.UUCP>
Reply-To: play@mcvax.UUCP (Andries Brouwer)
Distribution: net
Organization: CWI, Amsterdam
Lines: 10


In article <362@talcott.UUCP> gjk@talcott.UUCP (Greg Kuperberg) writes:
>Lambert Meertens has stated that he sees no justification for the Axiom of
>Choice.  Well, that's odd, because I see no justification for not having
>it.
Well, of course there is no other justification for assuming AC than that
it is often convenient. But on the other hand, it is often inconvenient;
one gets these strange paradoxes like that of Banach & Tarski, while it
is possible to have a consistent theory of real analysis in which =each=
set is Lebesgue measurable, if only one does not assume AC.