Date: Mar 8, 2013 6:29 AM
Author: William Hughes
Subject: Re: Matheology § 222 Back to the roots

On Mar 8, 12:16 pm, WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:
> On 8 Mrz., 11:05, William Hughes <wpihug...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> To make a change:


Please answer the question

> Do *you* agree with the statement: It is silly to
> claim the existence of a set of natural numbers that has no first
> element?


<outside of Wokenmekenheim>

Given the standard ordering, it makes sense
to claim the existence of a set of natural numbers that has no
last element but it does not make sense
to claim the existence of a (non-empty) set of natural numbers that
has no
first element (For some orderings it does make
sense to claim the existence of a set of natural numbers
that has no first element).