On 31 Mai, 19:27, Virgil <virg...@nowhere.com> wrote: > In article > <e705c332-c068-4e0f-ade4-d3c25f33b...@l12g2000yqo.googlegroups.com>, > > WM <mueck...@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.
This is a logical truth obtained from observation of sets --- finite sets of course, because actually infinite sets are not observable. > > There is no reason why having n+1 available whenever n is available > requires existence of an n with no n+1.
Not for an infinite set that is not complete. But for every complete set.