On 8 Dez., 09:41, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > In article > <087b4922-8254-4cad-9246-70ea50c79...@a2g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>, > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > On 7 Dez., 22:53, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > > > > Just that can be constructed by one angle and two complete sides. > > > > I note that WM acknowledges that those sides are required to be > > > COMPLETE, But in his example they are not, since they both lack > > > endpoints at their other (not in common) ends. > > > Interesting. But you believe that the natural numbers form a complete > > set without an endnumber? > > The naturals have only one 'end number' that is itself a natural, the > first. > > Every other natural but thate first is between yet other naturals. > > So the set is complete as a set,
And it has a cardinal number. So is the set of lines of my arithmetical triangle complete and has a cardinal number. But this cardinalk number multiplied by the unit length is no longer a number?