In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> 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.
At least not observable by WM, though they are as observable to others as large finite sets. > > > > 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.
Then whatever WM's special notion of "completeness" may be in his world of MathUnrealism, it is not universal among sets outside that world.