Date: Dec 8, 2012 3:41 AM
Subject: Re: Matheology � 170
WM <email@example.com> wrote:
> On 7 Dez., 22:53, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > > Just that can be constructed by one angle and two complete sides.
> > I note that WM acknowledges that those sides are required to be
> > COMPLETE, But in his example they are not, since they both lack
> > endpoints at their other (not in common) ends.
> Interesting. But you believe that the natural numbers form a complete
> set without an endnumber?
The naturals have only one 'end number' that is itself a natural, the
Every other natural but thate first is between yet other naturals.
So the set is complete as a set, and a well ordered set, but not as a
set with a last member, at least not when using the usual ordering on
But it appears that these simple facts, which seem fairly common and
obvious to me, are beyond WM's grasp.