"Virgil" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message news:virgil-D57CCD.14452612062013@BIGNEWS.USENETMONSTER.COM... > In article <email@example.com>, > firstname.lastname@example.org wrote: > >> On Wednesday, 12 June 2013 18:06:40 UTC+2, Zeit Geist wrote: >> >> > > > > And for which k do you fail to well-order by size all rationals >> > > > > which have (m + n) < k? > It will fail at no k, all k are >> natural >> > > > > numbers. It will fail for the set of all natural numbers. >> >> My proof does not concern "the set of all natural numbers" whatever you >> may >> understand by and expect from that phrase. My proof concerns "all natural >> numbers" and "all rational numbers" without any exception. > > and your "proofs" are mere 'poofs' outside the wild weird world of > WMytheology
many 'spoofs' are written by 'poofs'
>> >> If your "sets" are different or more, then I am not interested > > Then we are not interested in your wild weird world of WMytheology > either.
his spoof concerns the set of all non-irrational numbers and finiting it, somecow.