Date: Dec 8, 2012 5:35 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 170
In article

<49474758-4037-4c42-9b89-0b56235e3b4e@8g2000yqp.googlegroups.com>,

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

> 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?

>

The first natural is an end number of the naturals is an end number

because it is a natural which precedes all other naturals in the

standard ordering. There is no equivalent natural that follows all other

naturals is standard ordering. While omega or aleph_0 may be considered

as upper bounds on initial sets of naturals, neither is a member of that

set of naturals, so is not a terminal member, as required.

--