In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, "bethy" <email@example.com> wrote:
> "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.
And it takes someone with less wit that a cow to try it. --