Nathaniel Deeth wrote in message <368f6152.12918955@news.vsat.net>... >On Fri, 01 Jan 1999 05:43:16 GMT, standebj@slu.edu wrote: >
>Don't you see that counting by 2's necesitates using natural numbers >that are outside the currently envisioned set of all natural numbers? >
ANOTHER new term invented. Now, not only do we have absolute infinite non-dynamic sets, and the like, we ALSO have 'envisioned' sets? Do we have 'non-envisioned' sets as well, Nat? Are they static, dynamic, or pink??
Perhaps your 'envisioned' version of the naturals doesn't include the number 2, but my (un-envisioned, as it is) version _does_ (If I feel like ordering the naturals, I usually place it between 1 and 3. Look for it there.)
