On 8 Mrz., 12:29, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote: > 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>
Where is Worker's meken? > > 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)
Very important remark! Thank you.
> set of natural numbers that > has no > first element
Very good. I see, we agree completely. Would you be so kind to inform Virgil of this surprising fact? For some unknown reasons he does not believe in my words and in logic.
And I have a second question:
The set of FISONs that do not contain the set |N of all natural numbers, in its natural order, has a first element {1}, a second element {1, 2}, but no last element.
Can a bunch of infinitely many incapables be capable? For instance, can an infinite sequence of positive numbers between 0 and 1 have the limit 100?
