
Re: There is no infinite set
Posted:
Jan 10, 2014 8:16 AM


Albrecht <albstorz@gmx.de> wrote: > On Friday, January 10, 2014 10:09:49 AM UTC+1, wpih...@gmail.com > wrote: >> On Friday, January 10, 2014 2:31:41 AM UTC4, Albrecht wrote: >> >>> On Thursday, January 9, 2014 5:33:09 PM UTC+1, wpih...@gmail.com >>> wrote: >> >>> >> >>>> On Thursday, January 9, 2014 2:09:51 AM UTC4, Albrecht wrote: >> >> >> >> The question is are the two statements identical. > > Your question. But not my question. > > My question is, how it is possible that seemingly intelligent people > don't grasp that I don't assume a last element and that it is totally > irrelevant whether my assumption is equivalent with some other > assumptions or not. > > If there is a set with a first, a second, a third element, and no > more elements, the set has exactly three elements. If the set doesn't > have a third element, the set has less than three elements. > > Any other view is at least strange, but in fact nonsense.
I assume that you would say that: the first element of the set {1,2} is 1. the first element of the set {2,1} is 2. Right? Do you realise that {1,2} = {2,1} and therefore that the notions of "the first element of a set", and in general, "the nth element of a set" are nonsense?
Dirk Vdm

