In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 20 Feb., 00:04, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote: > > In article > > <3631966c-7e49-45db-a3f9-03b9b9724...@f6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>, > > > > WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > > > It is self-evident that "for every natural number" is identical with > > > "up to every natural number". > > > > And to "for all natural numbers", as a quantifier. > > No, there are not all natural numbers, because that would be a set > without the possibility to obtain further natural numbers. But it is > the most important feauture of any set of natural numbers, that it is > not complete.