In article <email@example.com>, WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> wrote:
> But all this discussion has become futile after the recognition that the > expression "For all n in |N" is utterly false, since in well-defined precise > mathematics we have not more than "For every natural number that is followed > by infinitely many natural numbers".
SO tath WM concedes the existence of an actual infininty of natural numbers following each natural number. And since he concedes thats ince every natural number number IS followed by infinitely many others all infinitely many of them are. Or can WM name one which isn't?
> After a while also you will understand > that "For all n in |N" is of the same logical level as "let x be an > irrational rational"
That can only be the case inside of WM's wild weird world of WMytheology where WM makes the rules.
Elsewhere, where WM is not able to impose his own rules, things are far moresensible. --