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