On May 27, 4:04 am, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > The question is whether we could inform someone who does not yet know, > what we understand by the sequence of natural numbers.
Could we inform them COMPLETELY? Could we ever FINISH informing them? Wouldn't they just POTENTIALLY informed??
> > But non-static sets do not exist in any mathematical set theory.
Of COURSE not. THE PARADIGM is static! IF you want something variable as OPPOSED to static then you CALL that something A VARIABLE or A PROCESS AS OPPOSED to a static constant! The theory is INHERENTLY ABOUT static, constant things! AND some of these static constant things are statically constantly LACKING first and last elements (like the set of all&only the integers, for example). Or at least they CAN be ordered that way -- order is NOT an INHERENT property OF ANY set -- indeed, the fact that ALL possible orders are EQUALLY legitimate -- STATICALLY -- is what MAKES a thing a set!
> They do not exist in what is commonly called set theory and what is > eternally false mathematics.
Because the paradigm IS STATIC, it does NOT do TIME, EITHER, which makes your calling it "eternally" anything, well, even stupider than usual.
The mathematics you are calling eternally false is in fact PERFECTLY capable of dealing with variables and processes. It's just that N *IS NOT ONE* of them. N *is* static, PRECISELY AS your contention that we can finish communicating it clearly SHOWS.