> In article <firstname.lastname@example.org>, > email@example.com wrote: > >> On Monday, 8 July 2013 22:20:31 UTC+2, Virgil wrote: >> >>> > Look at this simple piece of logic: If I remove a number ONLY after >>> > another one has been inserted, then even infinitely many transactions >>> > will NEVER show an empty set. >> >>> WM's excessively finitist WMytheology is far too restrictive and >>> self-contradictory to allow for a proper analysis of this problem. Let WM >>> answer this: If every insertion of a natural number into an initially empty >>> vase before noon is followed by its removal, also before noon, as is the >>> case here, which natural numbers does WM claim will remain unremoved at >>> noon? >> >> I do not order what will have to remain. I order that at least one natural >> will remain. > > > In order for a natural to remain, it must be a natural with no > successor, since for every natural WITH a successor, its removal > satisfies all of WM's requirements, and thus must occur. > > > > Play the game as long as it is possible without removing all >> naturals from the urn. It will possible for the first 10^100^1000^1000000000 >> steps. I cannot see that there is a limit. But if you believe that at noon >> all naturals will have left the urn, then there must be a limit. > > WM is thus claimg the existence of a last natural, one with no successor > natural.
Thats wide more half the secret ;)
>> Find it! Tell it! > > WM is the only one who claims existence of a natural with no successor,
The potential succ(n, All n in N)?
> so he is the only one obligated to prove its existence.
No need as long asshole wm can enforce enough input round clock.
> Those of us who claim the sequence has no last member have nothing to > prove, since every natural EXCEPT FOR a last one is correctly removed > from the vase..