Date: Feb 20, 2013 2:53 PM
Author: Virgil
Subject: Re: Matheology � 222 Back to the roots

In article 
<b110a688-4b1e-469d-9878-5d8542dc55a9@7g2000yqy.googlegroups.com>,
WM <mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> On 20 Feb., 00:04, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> > In article
> > <3631966c-7e49-45db-a3f9-03b9b9724...@f6g2000yqm.googlegroups.com>,
> >
> >  WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> > > It is self-evident that "for every natural number" is identical with
> > > "up to every natural number".

> >
> > And to "for all natural numbers", as a quantifier.

>
> No, there are not all natural numbers, because that would be a set
> without the possibility to obtain further natural numbers. But it is
> the most important feauture of any set of natural numbers, that it is
> not complete.


Which ones do you have to lave out?
--