In article <70da2ace-75b1-46be-8b0a-209e79a0e839@y9g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>, WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 31 Mai, 16:56, "Peter Webb" <webbfam...@DIESPAMDIEoptusnet.com.au> > wrote: > > I see. > > No, you don't. You intermingle mathematical theorems and logical > foundations. Mathematical theorems can be proven using axioms and > logic. > > Logical foundations cannot be proven (how should they? By some pre- > logic laws?). Logical foundations can only be obtained from observing > the behaviour of sets
That could only be the case if one assumes a priori that nothing but sets can exist,and not necessarily then. > > This observation results in a logical law that states: Every linear > complete set has a last element.
Then that means there are non-complete linear complete sets which, though ordered, do not have last elements. > > Think a while about that.
Did so, and, as usual, found that WM's arguments do not hold water.
