On Sun, 11 Mar 2012 19:27:30 +1100, "DavidW" <no@email.provided> wrote:
>You claim to have a _complete_ set of natural numbers but by >definition it cannot be complete.
What definition are you referring to?
>They go on forever!
Yes, so what?
>That is the essence of my argument.
You think you've proved something?
>You might not like it, you might not agree with it, but it >is at least prima facie an argument that cannot simply be >dismissed as necessarily coming from a crank or a "brat".
