DavidW wrote: > > [...] You claim to have > a _complete_ set of natural numbers but by definition it cannot be complete. > They go on forever!
They do indeed go on forever, but if that's difficult to grasp, what is wrong with "the least inclusive set that contains 0, and, if it contains n, also contains n + 1"?
If you think there's something physical about going on forever, then I'm not surprised if it's difficult to grasp, but there isn't.
-- When a true genius appears in the world, you may know him by this sign, that the dunces are all in confederacy against him. Jonathan Swift: Thoughts on Various Subjects, Moral and Diverting
