On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 11:26:53 AM UTC-5, John Gabriel wrote: > On Wednesday, 26 February 2014 18:03:49 UTC+2, Dan Christensen wrote: > > > On Wednesday, February 26, 2014 2:48:04 AM UTC-5, John Gabriel wrote: > > > > > > > In your write-up, next(a) is meaningless garbage. > > > It is a successor function on the set of natural numbers. Got a problem with that? > > Yes, because then you already assume the prior existence of natural numbers.
Again, unless you want to rule out the existence of infinite sets altogether, the existence of the natural numbers is not problematic. See my previous posting above.