"Bob Street" <bob@belgrave.clara.net> wrote, in part:
>It's simple, if you would perhaps consider doing me the honor of reading the >following:
>You consider sets of natural numbers with a LARGEST ELEMENT. If K is the >largest element of such a set, then this set contains AT MOST K+1 ELEMENTS >(the set {0, 1, 2, ..., K}. i.e., It is A FINITE SET.
>Therefore, you can't have an infinite set of natural numbers with a largest >element.
>It seems that your 'static infinity' means 'finite', just like 'non-absolute >infinity' did.
Exactly what I have been trying to tell him. Over and over.
We big bullies - we think we're so smart. So he refuses to acknowledge our superior wisdom; just because we say it's "obvious", it's not obvious to him, and he's not going to admit we're right, so there.
And he will go right on claiming that, since he has implicitly assumed that no static set can be infinite, by finding that as a consequence in a circular proof based on a false premise, he has 'proved' that a static set of all the natural numbers cannot exist.
