Date: Mar 9, 2013 4:32 AM
Author: mueckenh@rz.fh-augsburg.de
Subject: Re: Matheology § 222 Back to the roots

On 8 Mrz., 22:57, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
> In article
> <ed9dbe7d-6b3b-4acc-86bc-7b8408236...@m4g2000vbo.googlegroups.com>,
>
>
>
>
>
>  WM <mueck...@rz.fh-augsburg.de> wrote:

> > On 8 Mrz., 10:41, Virgil <vir...@ligriv.com> wrote:
>
> > > > A set of natural numbers, finite or infinite, without a first element
> > > > is not object of mathematics.

>
> > > > > > Name the first line.
>
> > > > > Which first line? There are infinitely many possible first lines.
> > > > > In fact EVERY line is a first line of some such set.

>
> > > > Name at least one line that is not obviously irrelevant for the task.
>
> > > Since any line can be the first line of a suitable set of lines, each
> > > line is relevant, but also unnecessary.

>
> > Each line is relevant but also irrelevant. A nice confession.
>
> In order to determine whether a particular line is in a set of lines
> covering |N, no line is irrelevant but neither are all all are necessary.
>

A nice confession of intellectual helplessness. Of course the lines
from 1 to n are completely irrelevant. That can everybody with
elementary knowledge recognize.
>
> > Learn: In mathematics, we have sets of natural numbers without last
> > elements.

>
> > A set of natural numbers without a first element is not
> > object of mathematics.

>
> The empty set is an object of mathematics even if to an object in
> WMytheology.


I let this stand as it is although (or because) it has nothing at all
to do with the problem that every set of natural numbers, i.e. a set
that contains natural numbers, has a first element which fact Virgil
objects to.

Regards, WM