On Saturday, 21 December 2013 22:45:50 UTC+1, Virgil wrote: > In article <email@example.com>, > > firstname.lastname@example.org wrote: > > > > > On Saturday, 21 December 2013 21:15:47 UTC+1, Virgil wrote: > > > > In article <email@example.com>, > > > > > > firstname.lastname@example.org wrote: > > > > > > > My very lose understanding of infinity, we can construct an > > > > > algorithm that create an unfinite number terms in a list the > > > > > simplest would be 1+1+1..., but we can not ever complete the list > > > > > and never find the last member. > > > > > > Since infinite lists by definition do not have last members, not > > > > being able to find one is a GOOD thing. > > > > > Since infinite sequences by definition have infinitely many terms > > > following beyond every term, and every term is belonging to a finite > > > initial sequence, not finding nearly all terms is a good thing. > > > > Only in the Wilds of Wolkenmuekenheim. > > > > For any sequence given by formula, one has already found ALL terms, >
That is a matter of definition of "found all". Give one natural number that is individualized such that everybody knows which number it is and can put it in trichotomy with any other natural number. I say: Give such a number which has not infinitely many numbers following it. Or confess that nobody can individualize all natural numbers.