In article <e705c332-c068-4e0f-ade4-d3c25f33b380@l12g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 30 Mai, 23:16, Virgil <virg...@nowhere.com> wrote: > > > > Then we have only > > > En Am: m =< n ==> Am En m =< n [**] > > > because not all elements are readily available. > > > > Any set in a sane set theory has all members equally "available". > > Then a complete set with linear order sould have a last element.
Non sequitur, as usual.
There is no reason why having n+1 available whenever n is available requires existence of an n with no n+1.
