In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 23 Jan., 14:08, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...@uta.fi> wrote: > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> writes: > > > On 23 Jan., 13:57, Aatu Koskensilta <aatu.koskensi...@uta.fi> wrote: > > > > There is no fixed number as cardinality. > > > > If we take the view that the naturals are an indefinite totality, > > continually in the process of coming into being, it certainly makes > > sense to say that the totality of finite initial segments of naturals > > has no cardinality. It makes no sense whatever to insist it's finite. > > That is a matter of taste.
That is a matter of common sense, at least outside WMytheology .
> But it is not a matter of taste, whether or > not we take this view. The other view, assuming complete infinite > sets, is certainly contradicted by the requirement of two different > Binary Trees which cannot be distinguished by nodes.
One of which trees WM has never proved to exist, much less described in anything but the vaguest ambiguous terms, and resisted all requests for further clarification about.
All Complete Infinite Binary Trees are essentially isomorphic. --