On 27 Mai, 14:44, David C. Ullrich <dullr...@sprynet.com> wrote: > On Wed, 27 May 2009 01:04:52 -0700 (PDT), WM > > > > > > <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > >On 26 Mai, 21:49, Virgil <virg...@nowhere.com> wrote: > > >> > If we define: > > >> > 1 is a natural number > >> > and > >> > with n also n+1 is a natural number > >> > and > >> > N is the smallest set that satisfies both conditions > > >> > then N is uniquely specified. > >> > Of course there can be different models for N and there can be > >> > different names for the elements of N. But that does not matter. The > >> > natural numbers do not enter mathematics because someone "defines" > >> > them, names them, or makes models of them, but because the natural > >> > numbers are simply existing and mathematics is built upon them. > > >> But according to WM, no such thing as N can exist. > >> So WM wold throw out the naturals on which so much is built. > > >The question is not whether the complete set of all naturals exists. > >That question alrady is nearly as ridiculous as any affirmative > >answer. > > >The question is whether we could inform someone who does not yet know, > >what we understand by the sequence of natural numbers. > > Sorry, I can't follow any of this, because I don't already know what > you mean by the words "question", "is", "whether", "we". > "could", "inform", "someone", "who", "does", "not", "yet", > and "understand".
1. Then let us start with the meaning of your sentence "because I don't already know what you mean by the words" Obviously you can understand that sentence, because you even corrected a typo (alrady) of mine. "does" is closely related to "do", "don't" is the negation of "do", apending a truncated version of "not".
So much for the first lesson. "First", abbreviated by "1." or "1^st" points to the last member of an ordered set of cardinality 1. Any open questions?
