Date: Feb 20, 2013 2:53 PM
Subject: Re: Matheology � 222 Back to the roots
WM <firstname.lastname@example.org> 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?