Date: Dec 8, 2012 3:48 AM
Author: mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
Subject: Re: Matheology § 170

On 8 Dez., 09:41, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> In article
> <087b4922-8254-4cad-9246-70ea50c79...@a2g2000yqh.googlegroups.com>,
>
>  WM <mueck...@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 it has a cardinal number. So is the set of lines of my
arithmetical triangle complete and has a cardinal number. But this
cardinalk number multiplied by the unit length is no longer a number?

Regards, WM