>>796 転載
ガロア第一論文と乗数イデアル他関連資料スレ12 rio2016.5ch.net/test/read.cgi/math/1735693028/270
より
(引用開始)
>つまり、整列可能定理は公理として、有理コーシー列で有理数Qの完備化を可能として
>無理数（超越数を含む）の存在を保証する
は君の発言だよね？　食言ってことは、未だに間違いって理解してないってこと？
(引用終り)

では、下記の通り 微修正をします ；ｐ）

つまり、整列可能定理は公理として、有理コーシー列で有理数Qの完備化を可能として
　↓
つまり、整列可能定理は公理として、x∈R subset A⊂R で 有理コーシー列 a sequence in A＼{x} that converges to x で有理数Qの完備化を可能として(但し、RをcompactにするためDCを使用>>261)

(参考)
　>>236より下記（Equivalent are:1. in R, a point x is an accumulation point of a subset A iff there exists a sequence in A＼{x} that converges to x, ＆ 9. the Axiom of Choice for countable collections of subsets of R.）
archive.wikiwix.com/cache/display2.php?url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.emis.de%2Fjournals%2FCMUC%2Fpdf%2Fcmuc9703%2Fherrli.pdf
Comment.Math.Univ.Carolin. 38,3(1997)545–552 545
Choice principles in elementary topology and analysis Horst Herrlich
1. In the realm of the reals
We start by observing that several familiar topological properties of the reals are equivalent to each other and to rather natural choice-principles.
Theorem 1.1 ([15], [29], [30]). Equivalent are:
1. in R, a point x is an accumulation point of a subset A iff there exists a sequence in A＼{x} that converges to x,
2. a function f : R → R is continuous at a point x iff it is sequentially continuous at x,
3. a real-valued function f : A → R from a subspace A of R is continuous iff it is sequentially continuous,
4. each subspace of R is separable,
5. R is a Lindel¨ of space,
6. Q is a Lindel¨ of space,
7. N is a Lindel¨ of space,
8. each unbounded subset of R contains an unbounded sequence,
9. the Axiom of Choice for countable collections of subsets of R.
There exist models of ZF that violate the above conditions ([17], [18]).
Observe the fine distinction between conditions 2 and 3 of Theorem 1.1.
These may lead one to assume that also the following property is equivalent to the above conditions:
(*) a function f : R −→ R is continuous iff it is sequentially continuous.
However, this would be a serious mistake: (*) holds in ZF (without any choiceassumptions) — see [29].
If, however, we consider functions f : X −→ R with metric domain we need even more choice than in Theorem 1.1, — see Theorem 2.1.