On Jun 1, 6:54 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > On 31 Mai, 19:27, Virgil <virg...@nowhere.com> wrote: > > 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.
YOU CAN'T *DEFINE* "complete", MORON!!! If you want to define it AS having a last element, then you will win BY CIRCULARITY! And lose thereby as well!