Date: Dec 8, 2012 3:41 AM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 170
In article

<087b4922-8254-4cad-9246-70ea50c79aae@a2g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,

WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> 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

first.

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

the naturals.

But it appears that these simple facts, which seem fairly common and

obvious to me, are beyond WM's grasp.

--