Changes

::But your distinction seems misplaced.  The meaningful point is that AC proves an absurdity.  It is irrelevant that another axiom may also produce the absurdity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:46, 27 November 2008 (EST)

::But your distinction seems misplaced.  The meaningful point is that AC proves an absurdity.  It is irrelevant that another axiom may also produce the absurdity.--[[User:Aschlafly|Aschlafly]] 19:46, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:::Even if the AC was completely blown out of the water ''somehow'', the subset issue would still exist. In a section where practically every other example ''depends'' on the AC, that is a distinction worth pointing out. But I rephrased it again. Does this please you more? I'm not here to defend or fight, but the omission of the possibility of constructing the subsets without AC had been notable, so I fixed it. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 21:56, 27 November 2008 (EST)

:::Even if the AC was completely blown out of the water ''somehow'', the subset issue would still exist. In a section where practically every other example ''depends'' on the AC, that is a distinction worth pointing out. But I rephrased it again. Does this please you more? I'm not here to defend or fight, but the omission of the proven possibility of constructing the subsets without AC had been notable, so I fixed it. --[[User:AlanS|AlanS]] 21:56, 27 November 2008 (EST)

== References ==

== References ==

<references/>

<references/>