"WM" <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote in message news:email@example.com... > On 20 Jun., 03:31, "Julio Di Egidio" <ju...@diegidio.name> wrote: >> "fom" <fomJ...@nyms.net> wrote in message >> >> news:C6KdnZCccIjltVzMnZ2dnUVZ_t6dnZ2d@giganews.com... >> >> > "Numbers count themselves" >> >> Indeed, how else? > > In matheology there are n numbers (1, 2, ..., n) but omega or aleph_0 > numbers (1, 2, 3, ...) and omega + 1 numbers > (1, 2, 3, ..., omega). This observation initially caused to refuse set > theory.
That kind of observation is exactly where I am coming from, should you have not noticed. But I am sick of your as well as my own hand-waving: Have you got any reference that could help me make head or tails of the [0, lamba) vs [0, lambda] issue? (E.g. did anybody study the latter construction? Does the "issue" exists at all, or are the two approaches just ultimately equivalent? Etc.)