On Mar 8, 12:16 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote: > On 8 Mrz., 11:05, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > > To make a change:
Please answer the question
> Do *you* agree with the statement: It is silly to > claim the existence of a set of natural numbers that has no first > element?
<outside of Wokenmekenheim>
Given the standard ordering, it makes sense to claim the existence of a set of natural numbers that has no last element but it does not make sense to claim the existence of a (non-empty) set of natural numbers that has no first element (For some orderings it does make sense to claim the existence of a set of natural numbers that has no first element).