In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> 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 is a question on which WM differs from the mainstream. But WM cannot grant its existence in a given argument and then deny it in the same argument and expect anyone to accept that sort of argument.
> That question alrady is nearly as ridiculous as any affirmative > answer.
Wrong! > > The question is whether we could inform someone who does not yet know, > what we understand by the sequence of natural numbers.
Children know from a very early age. Whom does WM think is left to inform? > But non-static sets do not exist in any mathematical set theory. > > They do not exist in what is commonly called ste theory and what is > eternally false mathematics.
Only in WM's MathUnrealism is it false. Everywhere else it is the true math. > > Regards, WM